Distribution by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
Online www.tsoshop.co.uk
Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 House of Commons
The Houses of Parliament Shop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Committee of Public Accounts Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890 General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk Programmes to help TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 families facing multiple This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/ challenges ISBN 978 0 215 07060 9
Fifty-first Report of Session 2013–14
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
HC 668 37603_HC668_Cover / sig1 plateA
37603 HC 668 Cover.indd 1 31/03/2014 21:16 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 37603_HC668_Cover / sig1 plateB
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts
Programmes to help families facing multiple challenges
Fifty-first Report of Session 2013–14
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 24 March 2014 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
HC 668 Published on 4 April 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £12.00
Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine ‘‘the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit’’ (Standing Order No 148).
Current membership Rt Hon Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking) (Chair) Mr Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk) Stephen Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Guto Bebb (Conservative, Aberconwy) Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative, Thurrock) Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry) Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch) Mr Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough) Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough) Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby) Nicky Morgan (Conservative, Loughborough) Nick Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent) Ian Swales (Liberal Democrats, Redcar) Justin Tomlinson (Conservative, North Swindon)
Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pac. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee is Sarah Petit (Clerk), Claire Cozens (Committee Specialist), James McQuade (Senior Committee Assistant), Ian Blair and Jacqui Cooksey (Committee Assistants), Sue Alexander (Committee Support Assistant) and Janet Coull Trisic (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk, Committee of Public Accounts, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone Thisnumber isfor general an enquiriesembargoed is 020 7219 5708; the advance Committee’s email addresscopy. is [email protected] Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form
before embargo time. See attached Press notice
1
Contents
Report Page
Summary 3
Conclusions and recommendations 5
1 The programmes’ design and implementation 9
2 Securing value for money from the programmes 11
Formal Minutes 14
Witnesses 15
List of printed written evidence 15
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 16
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 3
Summary
We welcome the commitment shown by everyone involved in the two programmes aimed at helping families facing multiple challenges. The close involvement of central and local agencies demonstrates that a joined-up approach is critical for effective planning and delivery, and for securing intended outcomes. However the existence of two similar, but separate, programmes run by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has resulted in confusion and unnecessary duplication. Both departments have tried to improve performance but they still have to resolve data-sharing difficulties, reduce variations in performance, and increase the programmes’ pace of progress. These actions are essential not only to turn around the lives of the troubled families involved, but also to deliver savings and demonstrate value for money.
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 5
Conclusions and recommendations
1. In 2006, the Government estimated that there were 120,000 families in England facing multiple challenges, such as unemployment and poor housing. It subsequently included other challenges, such as crime and antisocial behaviour. The estimated cost to the taxpayer of providing services to support these families is £9 billion a year, of which £8 billion is spent reacting to issues and £1 billion in trying to tackle them. In 2012, DCLG and DWP each introduced separate programmes to help these families. DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, with a central government budget of £448 million, aims to ‘turn around’ all 120,000 families by May 2015. DWP’s Families with Multiple Problems programme, with a budget of £200 million, seeks to move 22% of those joining the programme into employment by March 2015. Both programmes look to support families rather than individuals and to join up the activities of local service providers, who receive payment-by-results. DCLG pays local authorities up to £4,000 for each family that they have “turned around”. The judgement is based on ensuring children attend school, reducing youth crime and antisocial behaviour, and supporting adults into continuous employment. DWP pays contractors for tackling the barriers that clients face to finding employment, such as reducing antisocial behaviour and domestic violence, and for clients obtaining a steady job.
2. The good practice evident in DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, demonstrates how central and local government agencies can work together effectively. We welcome the commitment shown by all those involved in the DCLG’s programme to achieve lasting improvement in the lives of 120,000 troubled families by May 2015. The target set requires each of the 152 local authorities in England to identify and then “turn around” families that meet the definition of a troubled family. Each local authority has signed up to achieving real change for a sufficient number of troubled families for DCLG to meet the overall target of 120,000 families. Local authorities are taking action to bring services together, for example, by combining databases maintained by different agencies to help identify families. In addition, the programme has helped to galvanise a range of local services around This familiesis an and embargoedto provide a single person advance to support families’ copy. needs, and navigate their way around all the relevant services rather than the families having to deal with each Notagency to individually. be published Wefor also commendembargo in Louise any Casey details formCB, Director General of the DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, for her leadership of, and commitment to, thebefore programme. embargo time. See attached Press Recommendation:notice DCLG should identify good practice on how central and local agencies work together on its Troubled Families programme to secure a joined-up approach to local delivery. It should share this widely across the public sector, particularly in areas such as the health and social care sectors, where effective delivery at a local level relies on the coordination of multiple agencies.
6
3. The two programmes to help troubled families were designed and implemented separately, resulting in confusion and a lack of integration, and contributing to lower than expected performance during the early stages. There was no clear rationale for the simultaneous introduction of two separate programmes, which focused on addressing similar issues of crime, antisocial behaviour and employment amongst a section of the population with similar characteristics. Both departments introduced their programmes quickly, taking no longer than seven months to move from design to implementation. And both had innovative elements, such as payments for specified outcomes and for making progress towards employment. However, the integration of the programmes at the design phase was poor, leading to confusion, and contributing to the low number of referrals to the DWP’s programme. Both departments have taken steps to improve how their programmes work together. Specifically, 150 advisers from Jobcentre Plus have been seconded to 94 local authorities to provide practical support to local authorities, to help move family members closer to the labour market. Performance is now improving as a result.
Recommendation: The Government should learn lessons from the approach taken in this case to ensure that there is integrated policy making and implementation within, and across departments. The Government should agree a clear plan for delivery of the next phase of DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, from 2015.
4. The departments will not meet their targets without increasing the rate at which they have been succeeding in their work with troubled families. When the Comptroller and Auditor General reported in December 2013, both programmes were around half-way through their life. DCLG’s programme had succeeded with 22,000 families in the 19- month period to October 2013, leaving a further 98,000 families to be “turned around” by May 2015. DWP’s programme had achieved only 720 sustained employment outcomes by September 2013, around 4% of the programme’s expected performance. To meet their targets, the departments are reliant on individual local authorities and private providers delivering the necessary outcomes. But there are considerable variations in performance between local authorities and between providers, which put achieving the programmes’ objectives This atis risk. an embargoed advance copy. Recommendation: Thefor departments embargo must ensure detailsthat performance in each local Notauthority, to andbe by published each contractor, is scrutinised in any to pr formoperly manage the contracts giving appropriate support where appropriate, but also imposing sanctions where necessary.before embargo time. See attached Press 5. Efficient noticeand effective data sharing is required for the programmes to be delivered successfully. Government departments, local authorities and providers have experienced difficulties in sharing data, which have affected the programmes’ performance. We welcome the progress that the departments have made in tackling hurdles to sharing data. For example, DWP can now send its data on benefit recipients to DCLG to match names to its Troubled Families programme, and it has sent supporting guidance to local authorities to provide practical support. Data sharing is critical to identifying the families most in need of the support available within the two programmes, including data on their location and the issues they face.
7
While local authorities are looking to share data, variations in local practice persist, and other organisations, such as those in the health sector, may be less willing or able to share information. The bodies concerned need to overcome the cultural, statutory and regulatory hurdles which cause data to be withheld unnecessarily.
Recommendation: The departments should develop and disseminate clear guidance to local authorities. This should set out the data that local authorities can legally share and what practical steps they can take to overcome cultural barriers to sharing data among local agencies involved in delivery, alongside helping local authorities to meet their remaining legal responsibilities for data protection and confidentiality.
6. The departments need to demonstrate that the programmes deliver value for money. The departments’ programmes were predicated on securing financial as well as social benefits. For example, DCLG estimated that its programme would deliver a saving of £2.7 billion, if successfully implemented. DWP estimated that its programme could generate £2 in fiscal and social benefits for every £1 spent. Both departments have published details of progress, in terms of the numbers of families turned around and individuals that have moved towards employment. However, neither has monitored or assessed the financial savings and wider benefits that their programmes have delivered to date, such as the extent to which local authorities have restructured their services. Demonstrating value for money is essential for Parliament, the public and those involved in running the programmes locally, to have confidence in these and any future programmes of this nature. We therefore welcome DCLG’s development of a methodology to calculate the costs and benefits of its programme, which it needs to finalise and make available to local authorities as a matter of urgency. Reporting on the financial and non-financial benefits of the programmes will improve not only the transparency of the programmes’ performance, but will help support the case for future investment in this area.
Recommendation: Both departments should publish, alongside details of the programmes’ progress against their respective targets, details of the wider benefits and financial savings that they have identified. They should make clear what This proportionis an ofembargoed any financial savings are advance cash savings. copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
9
1 The programmes’ design and implementation
1. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on its Troubled Families programme and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on its Families with Multiple Problems programme.1 Both programmes aim to help families facing multiple challenges. We also took evidence from the Head of Targeted Services, Children’s Services, Leeds City Council; the Director of Children and Young People’s Services, Liverpool City Council; and the Chief Executive of Family Action.
2. In 2006, the Government estimated that there were 120,000 families in England facing multiple challenges, such as unemployment and poor housing. It subsequently included other challenges, such as crime and antisocial behaviour. The estimated cost to the taxpayer of providing services to support these families is £9 billion a year, spent either reacting to issues faced by families (£8 billion) or in trying to tackle them (£1 billion). In 2012, DCLG introduced its Troubled Families programme with a budget of £448 million, and DWP introduced its Families with Multiple Problems programme with a budget of £200 million, to help the families concerned over a three year period.2
3. Each programme has a target against which its ultimate success can be measured. The DCLG’s programme is intended to identify and then “turn around” 120,000 families in the period from April 2012 to May 2015. The DWP’s programme seeks to move 22% of those joining the programme into employment, and move the others towards employment. Both programmes include elements of payment-by-results. DCLG pays local authorities up to £4,000 for each family whom they have successfully supported, based on getting children back into school, reducing youth crime and antisocial behaviour, and supporting adults into continuous employment. DWP pays private contractors for tackling the barriers that clients face to finding employment, such as reducing antisocial behaviour and domestic violence, and for clients obtaining a steady job.3
4. DCLG’s target is ambitious, as it requires each of the 152 local authorities to transform Thisthe lives is of anan agreed embargoed number of families it advance has identified in itscopy. own area as meeting the definition of ‘troubled’. Each localfor authorit embargoy has shown a commitmentdetails to the programme’s successNot and tohas signed-upbe published to successfully work ining anywith a sufficientform number of troubled families for DCLG to meet its overall target of 120,000 families. DCLG told us that it was confidentbefore that it would achieveembargo its target. It attributedtime. the See programm attachede’s success to the Press fact that those in local government could see benefits for them, in terms of saving expenditure on, for example,notice children’s services. The policy commands support across the political spectrum which makes it easier to ensure commitment across local government and other agencies.
1 Comptroller and Auditor General, Programmes to help families facing multiple challenges, HC 878, 3 December 2013 2 Qq 78, 89, 126; C&AG’s Report, paras 1-2 3 C&AG’s Report, para 2, Figures 2 and 3
10
5. The Head of the Home Civil Service told us that DCLG’s Troubled Families programme was one of the most joined-up programmes across government, with six departments involved and partnership working locally. DCLG noted that the programme was about trying to get local areas to see how they could restructure services to avoid a position of numerous agencies “circling these families” and not achieving real change. Encouraging the different agencies involved to work together is fundamental to the programme’s success.4 For example, Leeds City Council told us that it had to work with over 100 different agencies.5 And Liverpool City Council emphasised the need to reduce the number of agencies that dealt directly with each family.6
6. Both departments introduced their programmes quickly, taking no longer than seven months to move from design to implementation. The speed with which the departments introduced their programmes limited the opportunity to identify and mitigate risks to successful delivery. The departments should be credited for introducing some innovative features into their programmes, such as a single payment for multiple outcomes, and for moving a participant towards employment.7
7. There is no clear rationale for the existence of two separate programmes designed to help families facing multiple challenges. Whilst the programmes have different objectives, each funds improvement in, for example, truancy, antisocial behaviour and employability, meaning that effort was duplicated. The two programmes were designed without joint governance arrangements and had separate business cases. The absence of integration during the design phase led to confusion amongst those delivering the programmes and contributed to the low levels of performance for DWP’s programme. For example, local authorities were initially uncertain about the remit of the two programmes, and therefore delayed referrals to the DWP’s programme.8
8. We asked the departments why there were two separate programmes trying to do the same thing. DCLG told us that when it started working on its Troubled Families programme, DWP had already made progress, and was ahead with, the Families with Multiple Problems programme, which receives funding from the European Social Fund. A judgement had been taken to move quickly by proceeding with both programmes and ensure they were joined up. The departments pointed to the action they have taken action to align the programmes, noting the sharing of data in both directions and the seconding of This150 advisers is an from embargoed Jobcentre Plus to 94 local advance authorities. Jo bcentrecopy. Plus advisers offer support such as highlighting fortraining embargo opportunities and detailsimproving job interview skills.9 LeedsNot City toCouncil be told published us that the Jobcentre in Plu anys support form was funda mental to local authoritiesbefore helping suppor embargot members of a family time. move towards See employment. attached10 Press notice
4 Qq 76, 90; C&AG’s Report, para 5 5 Q 17 6 Q 39 7 Qq 98, 124; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14, 3.2 8 Qq 68, 90, 146; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14, 2.29, 2.31, 3.4 9 Qq 68, 70-72, 90; C&AG’s Report, para 3.22 10 Q 28
11
2 Securing value for money from the programmes
9. Both the DCLG’s Troubled Families programme and the DWP’s Families with Multiple Problems programme have approximately one year to go before a final assessment of their value for money can be made.11 Family Action told us that it had seen good progress with troubled families, with regards to improving school attendance and reducing antisocial behaviour, although there had been less progress in getting people into employment.12 The most recent performance information, for the period April 2012 to October 2012, showed that the DCLG’s programme had successfully supported 22,000 families, 3% ahead of its expectations. It therefore needed to succeed with a further 98,000 families to achieve the target it had set at the beginning of the programme. However, the National Audit Office found that attachments to the programme—the necessary first step to turning families around—for the period April 2012 to September 2013 were 13% behind the DCLG’s expectations of performance. Local authorities will have to improve the rate at which they attach families to the programme, for DCLG to meet its target. The National Audit Office found that DCLG had intervened with local authorities where performance was below expectations. It had engaged with the 41 lowest performing local authorities, in terms of actual compared to agreed attachments, in the first year of the operation of its programme.13
10. The most recent performance information on the DWP’s programme showed that in the 18-month period to September 2013, only 720 sustained job outcomes were recorded, around 4% of the 19,800 number that the National Audit Office calculated would be a reasonable estimate of satisfactory progress. The DWP admitted that it was not meeting its objective, agreed with the European Social Fund, of moving 22% of participants into employment. However, it explained that this rate had been based on data from before the recession, drawing on groups of people who were easier to help. The DWP also noted that data for participants receiving Jobseekers Allowance who had completed the programme showed that between 12% and 14% moved into employment.
11. The National Audit Office’s analysis showed that performance varied considerably Thisfrom localis authorityan embargoed to local authority, and advance between providers, copy. delivering the DWP’s programme. For example, thefor best performingembargo local authority details achieved 270% of its first yearNot target forto attachments, be published and the lowest perf inorming any local authorityform achieved just 33%. A considerable number of local authorities (over 100) failed to achieve their target. None of the privatebefore providers embargoon the DWP progra time.mme achieved See theirattached target number Press of attachments to the programme, and the percentage of the target that providers reached varied from 7%notice to 74%. DWP accepted that there was variation between the providers, which it had sought to address by working with them to generate more referrals to the
11 Qq 68, 159; C&AG’s Report, paras 2 & 4 12 Q 50 13 Q 95; C&AG’s Report, paras 3.11, 3.15
12
programme. It expected the number of referrals to increase, largely as a result of the staff it had seconded to local authorities.14
12. To help identify families to join the DCLG’s programme, local authorities need to bring together information held on databases owned by a number of different agencies. Local authorities identified improved data collection and sharing as a benefit of the DCLG’s programme. Both DCLG and DWP were aware of the issues and were keen to take action. However, despite some evidence of progress, variations in practice across local authorities persist and some organisations, such as those in the health sector and the police, may be less willing or less able to share information.15
13. The DCLG told us that some quite significant advances on data sharing had been made, but it considered that the barrier to data sharing was not often a legal one, but down to culture and practice. However, some issues genuinely required legal change. DWP noted the significance of two legal changes: the first allowed it to share data on benefit recipients with local authorities, which would help them to identify families that met the criteria for joining the DCLG’s programme; and the second enabled local authorities to tell DWP who was on the Troubled Families programme. DWP had also made available to local authorities limited guidance explaining how data protection works, and the steps that could be taken to share data within those boundaries.16
14. The business case for each programme included an estimate of the financial savings successful interventions might deliver. In its original business case, DCLG estimated that its programme would save £2.9 billion, a figure it subsequently revised to £2.7 billion. DWP estimated that its programme would save £2 for every £1 spent.17 DCLG told us that it was developing a methodology to help local authorities calculate the costs and benefits of supporting troubled families. DCLG noted that three local authorities had looked in detail at the costs and savings associated with the programme. Manchester City Council estimated that it had a net saving of £35,000 a year for each family. The equivalent figures for Leicestershire County Council and the London Borough of Wandsworth were £27,500 and £29,000 respectively. The departments agreed that a framework for testing value for money could helpfully differentiate between different types of costs—such as marginal and capital—and then between cashable and non-cashable savings.18 This15. In additionis an to embargoed the financial benefits ofadvance their programmes, copy. the departments have identified other benefits that would accrue from their successful implementation and that theyNot needed to to considerbe published thesefor within embargo their a ssessmentin any ofdetails value form of money. For example, DCLG was looking to encourage local authorities to restructure their approach to supportingbefore families by joiningembargo up services and time. developing See new ways attached of working. DWP Press told us that it wanted to move people towards, as well as into, employment.19 The Head of the Home Civil Servicenotice considered that there were three important lessons from these
14 Qq 128-130, 147; C&AG’s Report, para 3.10, Figures 7 - 10 15 Qq 21, 79-80, 93; C&AG’s Report, para 3.23 16 Q 80; C&AG’s Report, para 3.23 17 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.8, 1.10 18 Qq 116, 127, 132, 166 19 Qq 76, 98; C&AG’s report, paras 1.5,2.11
13
programmes to be shared across government: the first was about shared endeavour between central and local government; the second was about the focus on outcomes through payment-by-results; and the third was about encouraging local partnership.20
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
20 Q116
14
Formal Minutes
Monday 24 March 2014
Members present:
Mrs Margaret Hodge, in the Chair
Mr Richard Bacon Stewart Jackson Stephen Barclay Austin Mitchell Chris Heaton-Harris Nick Smith Meg Hillier Justin Tomlinson
Draft Report (The rural broadband programme), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 15 read and agreed to.
Conclusions and recommendations agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fify-first Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report.
This is an embargoed advance[Adjourned till copy.Wednesday 26 March at 2.00 pm Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
15
Witnesses
Wednesday 29 January 2014 Page
Jim Hopkinson, Head of Targeted Services, Children’s Services, Leeds City Council, Colette O’Brien, Director, Children and Young People’s Services, Liverpool City Council and David Holmes, Chief Executive, Family Action Ev 1
Louise Casey, Director General, Troubled Families, Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government and Head of the Home Civil Service and Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions Ev 10
List of printed written evidence
1 Family Action Ev 30 2 Department for Communities and Local Government Ev 30 3 Leeds City Council Ev 31 4 Liverpool City Council Ev 32
This is an embargoed advance copy. for embargo details Not to be published in any form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
16
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.
Session 2013–14 First Report Ministry of Defence: Equipment Plan 2012-2022 and Major HC 53 Projects Report 2012 Second Report Early Action: landscape review HC 133 Third Report Department for Communities and Local Government: HC 134 Financial sustainability of local authorities Fourth Report HM Revenue & Customs: tax credits error and fraud HC 135 Fifth Report Department for Work and Pensions: Responding to change HC 136 in jobcentres Sixth Report Cabinet Office: Improving government procurement and HC 137 the impact of government’s ICT savings initiative Seventh Report Charity Commission: the Cup Trust and tax avoidance HC 138 Eighth Report Regulating Consumer Credit HC 165 Ninth Report Tax Avoidance – Google HC 112 Tenth Report Serious Fraud Office – redundancy and severance HC 360 arrangements Eleventh Report Department of Health: managing hospital consultants HC 358 Twelfth Report Department for Education: Capital funding for new school HC 359 places Thirteenth Report Civil Service Reform HC 473 Fourteenth Report Integration across government and Whole-Place HC 472 Community Budgets Fifteenth Report The provision of the out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall HC 471 Sixteenth Report FiRe Control HC 110 ThisSeventeenth is Reportan embargoed Administering the Equitable advance Life Payment Scheme copy. HC 111 Eighteenth Report Carrier Strike:for the embargo2012 reversion decision details HC 113 NineteenthNot Report to be The published dismantled National Programme in any for IT inform the NHS HC 294 Twentieth Report The BBC’s move to Salford HC 293 Twenty-firstbefore Report Police embargo Procurement time. See attached HCPress 115 Twenty-second Reportnotice High Speed 2: a review of early programme preparation HC 478 Twenty-third Report HM Revenue & Customs: Progress in tackling tobacco HC 297 smuggling Twenty-fourth Report The rural broadband programme HC 474 Twenty-fifth Report The Duchy of Cornwall HC 475 Twenty-sixth Report Progress in delivering the Thameslink programme HC 296 Twenty-seventh Report Charges for customer telephone lines HC 617 Twenty-eighth Report The fight against Malaria HC 618
17
Twenty-ninth Report The New Homes Bonus HC 114 Thirtieth Report Universal Credit: early progress HC 619 Thirty-first Report The Border Force: securing the border HC 663 Thirty-second Report Whole of Government Accounts 2011-12 HC 667 Thirty-third Report BBC severance packages HC 476 Thirty-fourth Report HMRC Tax Collection: Annual Report & Accounts 2012-13 HC 666 Thirty-fifth Report Access to clinical trial information and the Stockpiling of HC 295 Tamiflu
Thirty-sixth Report Confidentiality clauses and special severance payments HC 477 Thirty-seventh Report Supporting UK exporters overseas HC 709 Thirty-eighth Report Improving access to finance from small and medium-sized HC 775 enterprises Thirty-ninth Report The Sovereign Grant HC 665 Fortieth Report Maternity services in England HC 776 Forty-first Report Gift Aid and other reliefs on charitable donations HC 835 Forty-second Report The Charity Commission HC 792 Forty-third Report Progress at Sellafield HC 708 Forty-fourth Report Student loan repayments HC 886 Forty-fifth Report Excess votes 2012-13 HC 1068 Forty-sixth Report Emergency admissions to hospital HC 885 Forty-seventh Report Contracting out public services to the private sector HC 777 Forty-eighth Report Council tax support HC 943 Forty-ninth Report Confiscation Orders HC 942
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form
before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Committee of Public Accounts on Wednesday 29 January 2014
Members present: Margaret Hodge (Chair)
Mr Richard Bacon Fiona Mactaggart Stephen Barclay Austin Mitchell Guto Bebb Nick Smith Chris Heaton-Harris Ian Swales Meg Hillier Justin Tomlinson Mr Stewart Jackson ______
Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General , National Audit Office, Gabrielle Cohen, Assistant Auditor General, National Audit Office, Marius Gallaher, Alternate Treasury Officer of Accounts, and Tom McDonald, National Audit Office Study Team, were in attendance.
REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
Programme to help families facing multiple challenges (HC 878)
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Jim Hopkinson, Head of Targeted Services, Children’s Services, Leeds City Council, Colette O'Brien, Director, Children and Young People’s Services, Liverpool City Council and David Holmes, Chief Executive, Family Action, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Welcome. I think you probably know the Q2 Chair: What do you mean by “turned around”? drill, but this first part is short. What we really want Jim Hopkinson: We mean that we will have children to hear from you is what you, as people on the ground back at school. We will have levels of— who are experiencing the programme in one way or another, think are the key issues that need to be Q3 Chair: Left school or back at school? addressed. We are coming at this halfway through the Jim Hopkinson: Back at school. Levels of youth programme, so there is time to think whether anything crime and antisocial behaviour will be significantly could be amended. DCLG is talking about extending reduced and, most importantly—it is a new way of the programme post-2015. This is to reflect on what working for us in children’s services—we will have works, what doesn’t work, what is frustrating and supported adults in the family to come off benefits and what is good about it. Who wants to start? Do you return to work. We are quite confident that we are want to start from Leeds, Jim? Should I go across the starting to get some sustainable outcomes, which will three of you? mean savings to the public purse and the Leeds pound. ThisJim Hopkinson: is anMy nameembargoed is Jim Hopkinson. I am the advance copy. head of targeted services for Leeds city council, and Q4 Chair: How many families are you working I have a portfolio of responsibilityfor for the Troubledembargowith? How manydetails families did you think you would FamiliesNot programme to inbe Leeds, published which we call Families inhave whoany fit the criteria?form Jim Hopkinson: First. I am delighted to be working so closely with Our target in Leeds is to work with 2,190 families. When we did our identification, we CLG on this programme. It was a methodology of found nearly 3,000 families who met the criteria set work that webefore were seeking toembargo do anyway in Leeds— time. See attached Press by CLG plus our individual local criteria. We really what we call “think family” work—and it has really welcomed the opportunity to have our local criteria helped us motivatenotice our other partners to buy into the added on to that. “think family” approach. The approach of one family, one plan, gripped by one lead practitioner is Q5 Chair: What are they? absolutely the sort of programme that we are looking Jim Hopkinson: Our local criteria are having a child for. It has given us the impetus to increase our in need, children on child protection plans and what intensive family support to bring partners around the we call high-repeat call-outs of the police to table, both strategically and operationally, to run this households, because that indicates a high-cost family programme. and often—not always, but often—a family where We believe that we are seeing results, in terms of domestic violence is prevalent. In the first year, we turning families around. We anticipate that we will worked with just short of 1,000 families, and we have have turned around more than 35% of all our families so far managed to claim on 532 of those families. We by the end of the next claim period, which is on 14 are still continuing to support many of them, but we February. are confident— Ev 2 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Q6 Nick Smith: You “claimed on” 532 families? members of staff from Jobcentre Plus and two Jim Hopkinson: Those 532 families are families additional workers just joining. That has been an where we were in a position to submit a payment by incredible boost to the work that we have done, and results claim. We believe that for many of those the work that our lead practitioners are now able to families, it is not just a PBR claim; it is a sustainable do around moving families closer to the labour force. outcome, provided we continue to support those families. Q13 Chair: Just to get it clear, you got 19 into work. Jim Hopkinson: Six months or more—sustainable. Q7 Fiona Mactaggart: I am looking at figure 8 in the NAO Report. Does that put you in the top six Q14 Chair: Out of the people who joined in year 1? authorities? We are now going into year 3, so you have been Jim Hopkinson: That was the NAO Report at that working with them for over a year. time. I would not know where we are in the ranking Jim Hopkinson: The only caution I would give is that of authorities now, because there would have been that is partly about the systems that we had in place other claim periods since then. There have been three to ask the question. The work that we need to do to claim periods to date. In Leeds, we have so far evidence that is quite complicated. Actually claiming managed to turn around about 24% of our entire for PBR is a complicated process and we have got cohort. better and smarter at it. We do need to invest quite a lot of time in it, so we are probably in a better position Q8 Austin Mitchell: How do you define a to ask the question. sustainable outcome, or turning them around? Jim Hopkinson: There are two aspects to the Q15 Chair: I don’t understand any of that. outcome. The outcome is obviously whether we have Jim Hopkinson: What we need to do is to get the mathematically demonstrated that we have children families and check that they are still living at that back at school, whether we have mathematically address—we have to do all sorts of address demonstrated a reduction in antisocial behaviour or verifications. We then pass all that data to DWP, and crime, or demonstrated that those are families who DWP then gives us that data back. Then we match that have come off— data against attendance data, crime data and antisocial behaviour data. So it is an administrative task that we Q9 Austin Mitchell: Is it one criterion, or several? have got better and smarter at, but it does take quite Jim Hopkinson: There are three separate criteria that some time. we are seeking to achieve in order to claim for the family. Q16 Mr Jackson: Obviously, from what you have said, it seems that Leeds has made a good start. You Q10 Austin Mitchell: So in those families, you have are to be commended for that. Can I ask you achieved on all three? specifically about how you treat the whole cohort? Jim Hopkinson: Not necessarily all three. We need to This is a programme over three years. One of the achieve on two, or we need to achieve on the work concerns I had with my local authority is that it was outcome, but actually for the families whom we have quite opaque in the way it said, “Well, we are working claimed for in Leeds, it is fundamentally on with the families” when, in fact, what happened was attendance, and reduction in crime and antisocial they spent months and months so-called scoping, and behaviour, because it took us just a bit longer to get then they gave the ones whom they were not directly our systems in place to ask the question about work working with a DVD. They took exception to the fact Thisdestination—about is an families embargoed coming off benefits. advancethat I thought that wascopy. not a good idea. My question is: are you working with all those 2,000-plus at Q11 Chair: So out of the 1,000 thatfor you started embargo work different levels details of activity? In other words, are you withNot in year to 1, how be many published have you got a work inincrementally any taking form blocks and intensively working outcome for? with a block? Or are you working with all the 2,500, Jim Hopkinson: There are not that many cases where because obviously some will be higher priority than we have claimedbefore for the work embargo outcome, and that istime.others? If thereSee is a dangerattached to a child or seriousPress because we haven’t asked the question— domestic violence, I agree that that must be a priority, so how do you prioritise, and are you working with Q12 Chair: Hownotice many? the whole cohort with the resources that you have on Jim Hopkinson: Just 19 at this moment in time. the city council? However, we have another claim coming in February. Jim Hopkinson: We did not work with our whole There are two aspects of the claim: whether it is cohort of 2,190 families on day one. Our system, very progress to work or sustainable work, which means briefly, was to identify our families. What we have in you have been in work for six months. I hope that Leeds is locality working. We call them clusters. We number will increase, and in fact our challenge from have 25 clusters. We parcelled the first cohort of those our chief executive is very much that he wants to see families, which was about 1,000—so just under half— that figure increase. The massive boost that we have into our 25 locality areas. Using some funding and had is the secondment of Jobcentre Plus employees to some of our match funding, we essentially have 25 our programme. We have a central programme team local troubled family co-ordinators in each one of with some local authority workers, a senior probation those localities, each working with a population of officer, an inspector-level police officer and now two 30,000 to 40,000 or so. Each one had a list of maybe Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 3
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
50 or so families, and we asked them to make sure Q18 Mr Jackson: This is my last question. Clearly, that those families had an assessment in place and a you are on top of it and we wish you success in lead practitioner in place to grip the family. achieving your objectives by 2015, but are you We prioritised those families into higher risk, higher sharing good practice across west Yorkshire—with need, and of course many of those were already Bradford or Calderdale—or any of the other local working with services. Some of them were lower need authorities, or further than west Yorkshire? Obviously, or not on the radar of services, as we would like them there will be a common interest and common issues to be. The task we gave our local troubled family co- identified. ordinator was to make sure that each one of those Jim Hopkinson: Hugely, and I take this opportunity families has the assessment, has the team around the to commend CLG for the support they are giving us family, and one plan with a lead practitioner in place around work force development, pulling together to grip that family. We have done that incrementally learning across the authorities. When we started, we and released more families for those local troubled had to develop our own systems of identification, and family co-ordinators to work with. They check that I explained how complicated some of our systems of the details that we have about the family from the identification and recording for payment by results computer are correct, that there is an assessment in were. We have learned from other authorities about place, that there is a lead practitioner, and that they are better systems of doing that and shared our in our intensive family support services. That process methodologies with other authorities. We get together works quite well. and share, as a region and as core cities, and it is in In year 2, we brought in what we called a “referral our interest in Leeds that other areas of the country in” process. In year 1 we used identification from a do as well as Leeds, because we want this programme series of different databases—police, youth offending, to continue, we want to see sustainable outcomes, and attendance and worklessness—because we know that we want to learn from best practice elsewhere. It is in in those localities, families come up on the radar and our interest to share best practice and we commend police get concerned about families, and we need to the support that CLG gives us to do that. make sure that we do not exclude those families by Chair: It is 20 to three, guys. I have three people who saying, “They weren’t on the original list.” So we want to ask Jim Hopkinson a question, and then we have an opportunity to refer those families in to make must move to the other two, so short and sharp if that sure that we work with those as well. is all right. Amyas Morse: I add my congratulations on what you Q17 Mr Jackson: How much humanity is involved are doing. First, you put your planned results to in this? It sounds quite process-driven. I think DCLG; have you exceeded those results or not? While “troubled families” is a politically correct name. They you are thinking about that one, are you putting non- are troublesome families—in my constituency, matched funding in, or are you just up to the matched exceedingly troublesome. Do you actually get in and funding level? make value judgments for these individuals and the Jim Hopkinson: We are up to the matched funding families—in other words, confront them with the level. Most of our matched funding is funding in kind consequences of their actions and then say, “You can that comes from probation, from the police, from our take a different path; we’re here to help you”? community safety department and from health. As for Matching databases seems mechanistic. How where we are going to get to, it is fair to say that at intimately involved are they in plotting a course for the start of the programme it will be very difficult for their own future and for their families? us to speculate on how many families we will turn Jim Hopkinson: That is a really good question. The around. We did have what we called a family Thisidentification is ofan families embargoed is mechanistic, if you like. Itadvance copy. intervention programme. We would speculate that we is a series of computer databases that we match would be achieving results around what that together to get household-level data.for We thenembargo send details programme achieved, and in fact we used some of the thatNot out to ourto locality-based be published troubled family co- in any form funding we received to increase our intensive family ordinators, and they do the work around who already support offering in Leeds. On budgeting, we initially knows thebefore family; who is workingembargo with the family; time. See attached Press and what team. One family, one plan, written by one started budgeting on the grounds of receiving payment lead practitioner. That lead practitioner comes and by results on 50% of those families. We have now leads from overnotice 100 different agencies, so is best done three rounds of payment by results and we are placed to go out, knock on the door of that family and confident enough to increase that, for budgeting offer what we call a high support, high challenge purposes, to 75% that we hope that we will be model. It is high support and high challenge, so achieving payment by results for, and that is not the sanctions are in place where sanctions are needed; end of our ambition. Our ambition is to go higher, but support is in place where support is needed. That is that is where we are for budgeting purposes. where the humanity comes in, because unless you have a suitably qualified and motivated trained worker Q19 Guto Bebb: I have just two questions. First, you who can go out and offer that open and honest mentioned that you are working with 100 different conversation with the family—high support, high agencies and the lead practitioner would be selected challenge—we will not get anywhere. So it is about on who was more relevant to supporting the family the skill set of the worker who goes out and knocks in question. on that family’s door. Jim Hopkinson: Who is best. Ev 4 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Q20 Guto Bebb: Is that an indication that this turned around 35% of our families. In terms of your programme has pulled together these partnerships and question about the attendance rate for the children we agencies in a way that didn’t previously exist? work with, every child is an individual and every Jim Hopkinson: I think it has helped to galvanise. We family is individual. That is the beauty of the system, have a programme board that is chaired by the deputy I guess, gripped by a lead practitioner who knows leader of the local authority, with very senior what the individual issues are for that family and what representatives. The commander of police is on that processes we need to put in place. board, and there is senior representation from all the Some of those children in some families would have agencies that you would expect to be there. It has good attendance records but other issues, or there will helped to galvanise that. We did have a “think family” be some members of the family with poor attendance protocol, so it is not new to us to say we need to have and others with good attendance. Each family is a team around a family—one family, one plan, different, and that is why the approach and the work gripped by one lead practitioner—but it has certainly that we need to do with that family has to be helped us to galvanise that. For example, it has helped individualised. us to do an awful lot of work force development among all those agencies that are supplying people Q23 Nick Smith: I am not quite satisfied with that. who are best placed to be lead practitioners, and it has Children going to school is really important for all allowed us to provide a significant amount of funding families. to the third sector, which is sometimes best placed to Jim Hopkinson: Of course, I agree. offer challenge and support to these families, because they have had poor experiences with some statutory Q24 Nick Smith: So do you or don’t you have data services. about children’s attendance from the families whom you have been supporting? Q21 Guto Bebb: My second point is about the 19 Jim Hopkinson: Oh, yes. job outcomes that you mentioned had been achieved. You mentioned that there was a very complex process Q25 Nick Smith: What does that show? Can you say of identifying the information in order to make the off the top of your head, or can you get more claim. Is that an indication that perhaps there is a information for us? degree of complexity in the programme that is Jim Hopkinson: I would have to get more problematic, or is it a case of teething problems that information for you, but clearly we know the have now been resolved? attendance records of the children at the time they Jim Hopkinson: I would say it was teething problems come on the programme. We want to make sure that that have now been resolved. We probably those children are no longer persistently absent from underestimated, in our authority, the work it was the school as part of saying they can come off the going to take to identify and do the work for PBR. programme. Without that, we would not expect them We want to make sure that we make our returns with to come off the programme. a high degree of integrity. We do not want to be in the position of claiming for families who will then be on Q26 Stephen Barclay: What is the highest number the front page of our newspaper for doing something of days truant a child could have and still be judged else. That would make the programme look rather a success? silly. It just took us longer than we anticipated to set Jim Hopkinson: We would have to have attendance up the systems. We are still modifying our above 85%. administrative systems for both identification and Thisclaiming, is and learningan embargoed from other authorities. We will advanceQ27 Nick Smith: Cancopy. I come back on my second continue to do so. question? I really would like to see that data. I want There are a lot of different databasesfor that we embargo have to to know what details success you have in getting youngsters bringNot together to for identification, be published and a lot of different ininto school. any form databases that we have to ask questions of, to the Jim Hopkinson: I can provide that as a written degree of integrity that we need for claiming those answer. results. before embargo time. See attached Press Q28 Nick Smith: One of the early answers you gave Q22 Nick Smith: Mr Hopkinson, it seems to me that was that only 19 out of 1,000 families had seen some you have a supportivenotice and challenging framework return into employment, which didn’t seem very good, around your local families; thumbs up to you on that. but these things take time to establish, I am sure. What You talked about a 35% success rate in getting kids measures have you now taken to improve that bad into school and reducing antisocial behaviour. Will start? you tell us more about that? What were the attendance Jim Hopkinson: Loads of stuff. As I said, the first records before and after your intervention with these thing is bringing Jobcentre Plus workers into the core families? programme team, which has been fundamental. It has Jim Hopkinson: I obviously did not explain myself been fundamental to us being able to ask the question, adequately. So far, we have submitted a claim for and fundamental to our ability to work with lead about half of all the families whom we started work practitioners on the ground, to support and challenge with in year 1. Of our overall cohort, that is about them to say: “What are you doing to support this 24%. I was trying to say that by the end of the next family to move closer to the labour market or move claim period, in February, we hope we will have into work, to make sure that we are referring families Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 5
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
to the Work programme and that no family is being family support via the pupil premium, to assist in the left unmotivated?” The issue around that is the early intervention work that is so important in this cultural change among the lead practitioners and about programme. saying: “As part of my work with that family, I am This is about turning off the tap and not just about challenging them to move towards the labour market”. delivering a programme. It is about what happens at That is the work that we have been doing. the end of it. We have had lots of programmes over the years; what makes this different, and why people Q29 Chair: I want to move us on, but can I quickly are so engaged with it in Liverpool, is how we make ask what proportion of your families have children on it live beyond the life of the grant. We are challenged the at-risk register? as a local authority: within the next three years, we Jim Hopkinson: I would have to— will be 53% leaner than we were six years before. We have got to find different ways of supporting our Q30 Chair: Can you let us know? families, and we feel we can justifiably engage Jim Hopkinson: I can provide that, yes. schools in this by the work they will have done with the families programme over the next couple of years. Q31 Chair: What proportion of your families would That is quite an unusual and different way of spending you classify as having children in poverty? some of that money. Jim Hopkinson: Again, I could let you know, but it We have also looked at engaging our registered social would be a significant proportion. landlords and paying for some housing support officers to work with them in identifying the families Q32 Chair: It would be interesting, because of the who are experiencing antisocial behaviour difficulties change of definition, to see what happened. I will in connection with their tenancy. Those innovative move on. Colette, you are from Liverpool, so try to ways are slightly different. We are looking, at the next give us not the same picture, but anything else, and period, really to engage health colleagues. We have things that you think we ought to interrogate the engaged them to a point, but that is where we feel we accounting officers on, when we get to them. Perhaps could develop the programme still more over the next you could talk a little about where the challenges have year and in the programme’s extension year, so that been in putting the programme together. It can be they are embedded in the work of supporting families. anything you like, really, but try to add value rather than repeat the same thing, as time is a constraint. Q33 Mr Bacon: May I stop you there? Might, Thank you. therefore, a health person be one of the 100 agencies Colette O'Brien: I will try to do that. I am Colette which Mr Hopkinson mentioned who turns out to be O’Brien, the director of children’s services in the lead practitioner in a particular case? The person Liverpool. Take a lot of that as read, as we were who knocks on the door within the ambit of the talking outside and there are lots of similarities programme being from the health sphere—does that between big cities. Liverpool has a third of its child happen already? population living in poverty—they qualify for free Colette O'Brien: It does, but to a very limited degree. school meals, for example—so that gives you some idea of the picture. Of our child protection plans, 64% Q34 Mr Bacon: And you are saying that it should are for neglect. That should set the scene. happen— Some of the things you might find interesting from Colette O'Brien: It should happen a lot more. Over the families programme in Liverpool—we have the last couple of years it would be fair to say that the dropped the “troubled” among ourselves as officers— NHS has been through quite a turbulent period. So Thisare that weis built an on our embargoed “total families” work, as Jim advancecertainly in the last yearcopy. it was difficult even to know said, to begin with. We have found it a really useful who to speak to. Who were you talking to? The CCG? vehicle to engage our schools asfor partners, embargo because As the PCT details morphed into the CCG: Liverpool sometimes,Not when to you be are workingpublished with schools on incommunity any health, form the acute trust? So we have this kind of agenda—they may say our objectives are struggled to engage with some of our health teaching and learning, and I get that—we are colleagues through no fault of their own. They are increasinglybefore looking to schools, embargo now that they have time.coming to theSee table inattached the programme. I think Press the the pupil premium and broader responsibilities, to payment-by-results element has assisted with that. It help us deliver this programme. They have become isn’t necessarily the bait that gets them there but it extremely engagednotice in Liverpool—they are very keeps them there. We like that bit locally. We like the enthusiastic. two elements. We like the up-front funding because So, on to some of the work that might be slightly that allows you to pump-prime. Without that it is very different and of interest, troubled families has helped difficult to add to your capacity in current times. us to work on a pupil tracker tool. That tool enables head teachers to know which services have been Q35 Mr Bacon: Can I be clear about that? You are working with children on their roll, and that is saying that the health people are more likely to come something that they are finding extremely useful. We along and stay because if they do they get a piece of are just in the design and pilot stage now. the action financially? That is what you are saying? We are also putting in place a school-family support Colette O'Brien: Locally, that piece of the action is service. I like that, because in terms of sustainability work force development. We are not talking about beyond the life of the programme, we will trade that scrabbling around for who gets what. We are talking with schools. We will be looking for them to purchase about training staff. Staff training is what we have Ev 6 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
invested our payment-by-results money in. So, yes, and focus the work because they can just go round in health colleagues get a piece of that. I did not just an endless circle of intervention. These are the mean health when I said that payment by results keeps families who keep coming back. There isn’t a simple people at the table; I would not like you to think that. solution. Hence the fact we sometimes talk about low It helps to focus the mind and it helps to keep us numbers of success because they do return and return. focused on the outcomes that we want to achieve, so We need to keep the numbers small and keep the lead we quite like the payment-by-results element. But I professional there so that they have one person who don’t like it exclusively. We like the up-front money they learn to trust who is co-ordinating what happens as well. We want everything, don’t we? But the up- to them. Very often that is the family support worker front money helps us to add to the capacity building who actually goes round and knocks on the door, and at the start. if there is an issue around attendance, helps to organise that child getting up in the morning and Q36 Mr Bacon: So you are saying that the health getting out to school. That is very practical work. colleagues feel when they come along that they are Often, people say they want social care. They don’t learning something that helps them to do their job want social care. They want family support in better? organising what can be a family that just needs a bit Colette O'Brien: Yes, and they engage better with the of help to get their act together to get their child up, common assessment framework, for example, through out and ready in the morning. the shared learning and through the work force development. We have had a problem locally in Q40 Ian Swales: Can I build on that point? You embedding our common assessment. The families mentioned earlier about schools and the pupil programme has helped us with that. premium. In parts of my constituency I have 50%- plus free school meals and in one case, 80% free Q37 Meg Hillier: Which groups of health school meals. When you talk to the heads about what professionals are you working with most? they are doing with the money, it is quite clear that Colette O'Brien: We are working with the CCGs as they are having to invest in things to do with families, commissioners but we are also working with not to do with frontline education, because in order to Liverpool community health—our provider arm. It is produce results with those children, they are having to the provider arm, the health visitor, the school nurse reach out beyond the school and into their families. who is the lead professional, who works up front in Can you say a bit more about how that is working in co-ordinating what happens with that family. Liverpool and how willing the schools who get this money are to engage in the sort of work you are Q38 Meg Hillier: So it is those on-the-ground doing? people. Colette O'Brien: We have something quite interesting Colette O'Brien: Yes. They are on the ground. going on in Liverpool called the Liverpool learning partnership. One of the things that we have to deal Q39 Austin Mitchell: You have given us the picture with now is this changing education landscape. We from the top down of the numbers involved and how have these things called academies and free schools it is working. Can you tell us about the bottom up? I and studio schools and UTCs and every other thing know there is no typical problem family, and in my you can think of. It is very easy to become very family I am the problem rather than the rest of the fragmented as a system. family. But say I am a problem family: how often What they have decided to do locally—and I am a would I be visited? Who would I be visited by? How partner in that—is to create a collaboration of schools. Thisdo all the is people an participating embargoed get co-ordinated? Is itadvanceIt doesn’t replace thecopy. local authority. It is a different through one person or are there multiple visits? way of delivering. All of our schools—we have 85% You’ve got the DWP, the Communitiesfor and embargo Local sign-up to this—pay details a fee per pupil and that money is Government,Not butto you’ve be also published got the police and the input together any into aform pot to commission projects. So at Probation Service. You’ve got the schools. You’ve got the moment schools are getting bombarded with the housing department. They are all playing a part in people saying, “You are the only ones with any this. Whobefore co-ordinates all that?embargo If I am a problem time.money—can See you pay forattached this, can you pay for Press that?” family do I have one person I can get in touch with What we are doing is going to that partnership and when problems come along or I am facing real saying, “With your pooled budget, can you pay for difficulties? notice X?” Colette O'Brien: You have one person in the lead professional but you will have other agencies who will Q41 Ian Swales: On this agenda? be called in. One of the things that has been so Colette O'Brien: On this agenda, and on other important in this programme is trying to minimise the agendas. They are not just feeling like they are putting number of people a family has to deal with. We found their hands in their pocket, as the pooled budget is before the programme when we were working on paying the cost. So we are saying, “Would you like to Total Family, that a troubled family could have 12, 14 commission a CAMHS project? Would you like to professionals. We don’t knock on the door and say, commission some family support?” So at the end of “Hello, are you a troubled family?” So we dropped this programme—and I have told them this from the that bit. We prefer to knock on the door and say, “We start, I will be trading family support workers who are are going to work with you.” You really need to currently part of the families programme—I will be minimise the number of people they are engaged with saying to them, “Would you like to buy this Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 7
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
partnership for our schools? Would our primary Colette O'Brien: All our reserves will be committed. schools’ small clusters like to buy a family support Chair: Stephen, it is a bit unfair to ask her because worker? Would our secondary schools or academies she is not the finance person. like to buy a family support worker?” That is how we are engaging them, rather than saying, “pay for this, Q48 Stephen Barclay: It is material. The evidence pay for that.” we are getting is that pressure on the finances is impacting on the programme at a time when reserves Q42 Ian Swales: Thank you. It is clear from reading are increasing, council tax is not collected and the Report and from the evidence that we are hearing Liverpool, on the figures I have from the Department, that there is likely to be a capacity issue here. If we gets £2,636 per household, which is massively more identify the families that we want to deal with through than my constituency in Fenland gets. If we are trying this programme, then I am guessing that we don’t to understand the pressure on the households within actually have the capacity in all of your organisations the programme it is important to understand the to do it at the moment. financial position and get a true picture. I am not sure In terms of bidding for resources, the whole cost- that 53% leaner is a true picture. benefit equation is right at the heart of what we are Colette O'Brien: What I meant was that in the first doing here. The whole point of this programme is we three years of budget reductions we had to save £172 believe that investing in it will ultimately save money million. In the next three years it is £156 million. By for the taxpayer. Are you tracking benefits of what 2017 that will be 53% less as a council than we had you are doing sufficiently in financial terms, so that six years previously. I was saying that we are not able when it comes to bidding for resources you have a to budget money up front for the payment by results good story about the payback of the interventions you figure. We wait for that to come in in arrears. have been making? Maybe it is a question for both of you. Q49 Chair: I think what would be fairer is if you Colette O'Brien: We are, particularly around the take Stephen’s perfectly legitimate questions and do family intervention programme, because we were us a note. I think it is a bit unfair to expect you as already doing that to begin with. I am not sure so children’s services director to be completely on top of much whether children’s services will see a cost- the budget. benefit necessarily. Colette O'Brien: Sure. Stephen Barclay: With respect, Chair, she was saying Q43 Chair: Who’s the “we”? that was putting pressure on. You can’t have it both Ian Swales: That is exactly my point. The benefit is ways. felt in hospitals, in prisons. Have you got a baseline against which you are measuring your work, because Q50 Chair: Let’s get a note. I think it is a fair it is much easier to get resources if you can show a question but if you can get your authority to provide business case for getting them? a note, that would be helpful. David, I am going to ask Colette O'Brien: It is. I think that is something we you from your rather wider national voluntary sector need to develop better than we have for children’s perspective the more challenging question: what needs services. to improve and change and where are the weaknesses? I know that is a specific one, but it is a time constraint. Q44 Chair: Are you doing it? Are you managing to David Holmes: Good afternoon. I am David Holmes, track it? chief executive of Family Action. We are an England- Jim Hopkinson: We are developing with CLG a cost- wide voluntary organisation, particularly known for Thisbenefit calculatoris an tool andembargoed we do hope that we will be advanceour range of family copy. support work. We are currently in a position to demonstrate outcomes in the near providing troubled families schemes in five different future. It does take some time to developfor the embargo tool. local authorities. details So, I guess what I bring is an Not to be published inoverview any of troubled form families in a range of different Q45 Chair: I want to go to David quickly. I wanted areas. to ask both of you whether you work with the DWP I would say to begin with that I welcome the troubled programmebefore as well. embargo time.families programme. See Iattached think it is very important Press to Colette O'Brien: Not very closely, no. have investment in family support and in trying to Jim Hopkinson: Through our Jobcentre Plus divert spend on those families to helping them to live colleagues we do,notice but not enormously. happier and better lives. In my experience and that of my workers, the families we work with are invariably Q46 Stephen Barclay: Miss O’Brien, you said that complex. They have a range of support needs. We can part of the pressure was that the council would have make some progress on the factors that are measured to be 53% leaner. Is that excluding the increase in under the programme: antisocial behaviour, school reserves and the uncollected council tax? attendance, youth offending and return to work. Colette O'Brien: Our reserve is primarily against our Certainly through the schemes we operate we have capital programme. We have 12 new schools that we seen good progress, particularly in school attendance are building, so I understand our reserve is primarily and reducing antisocial behaviour. There has been against that. much less progress on getting people back into work. I am not sure that captures the totality of what we see Q47 Stephen Barclay: But you are increasing in these families. I see families where domestic reserves. violence is prevalent. I was talking to one of my Ev 8 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
managers this morning and in more than 50% of her I welcome the fact that the troubled families scheme cases there is domestic violence. In a majority of the will continue, and I welcome the proposal to broaden families there are real issues with parenting and also it out to reach more vulnerable families. I hope that anxiety or depression or other mental health issues, in the future we will see more of a focus on the issues with families feeling they have just failed and are that I see so much through my projects—mental often in despair. health, domestic violence and parenting capacity. What is good about the troubled families initiative is Those are the things that are real to my families. that it promotes the whole family approach. I absolutely agree with the need for a dedicated, trusted Q53 Ian Swales: Can I ask a clarification question? family support worker to go in, work intensively with In my area, families in these programmes often have the family, build trust and make direct improvements alcohol and other substance abuse problems. Do you to the family’s life quickly. It can be fixing the boiler measure that dimension as well? or just winning trust, because those people will have David Holmes: Certainly, alcohol and substance seen so many professionals over the years, and over a misuse is an issue, although domestic violence and period of time they can make a change. I also see parenting capacity are issues for a larger number of tremendous variation in how the troubled families families. We try to get as broad a picture as we can scheme is commissioned. In one of the schemes, we of the family across as many dimensions as possible, are commissioned for a three-month intervention. It is because then we can show the progress that has been very difficult to turn families around in three months. made. Ultimately, when we look at the success or not of the programme, we do better if we look across the Q51 Chair: Why is that? piece, rather than at fixed outcomes. David Holmes: The commissioners work with families for three months and see the progress they Q54 Mr Jackson: Do you have a didactic approach make. It may take six months. to the way you deal with families? It is all very well to say, “These are the problems, and we are measuring Q52 Mr Bacon: Is “the commissioner” a local how we are getting on”, but you must give those authority? families a framework to teach them. I understand that David Holmes: Yes. In another area, we are for generations they have not had a moral, social, commissioned for up to 12 months. We need familial framework that will enable them to make flexibility in the programme so we can work with rational, good choices for their families. Are you families for as long as they need to make a real, saying that that is an implicit assumption in the positive change. That is not to say that organisations scheme? Are you saying, “Look, this is what you such as mine should be commissioned for years and should be doing”? I guess what I am asking is, are you years to work with a family and not achieve change; partially judgmental when you help those families? If however, we should make sure we are there for the you just sit around on a bean bag, saying, “Well, it’s families for as long as they need us so we can make going badly; it’s not working out,” with all due respect the changes that will transform their lives. that will not get the job done; that will not cut the When we think about the future of troubled families, mustard. we need to think about what happens when a family David Holmes: Families need really good and exits the programme. What do they step down to? I effective support. The way in which a family support have seen some real innovations. For example, in one worker will work with a family—if they are any area there is a community mentoring scheme, which good—is to go in, build trust and start giving their gives families somewhere to go, and there are family strategies for moving on. Thiscommunity is approaches an embargoed to keep up the progress that advanceI talked before about copy. the family star, which looked at has been made. In terms of the name “troubled parenting capacity. We do that with our families and families”, I do not call any of myfor troubled embargo families they love it. Theydetails will stick it on the fridge, because schemesNot “troubled to families”.be published I call them “family inthey canany see where form they are starting from and where focus”, “think families”, “building successful they are going. It gives them a framework to move families”, “families first” or “families working on. It is not patronising. Is it didactic? Well, if it is, it together”,before but not “troubled families”.embargo time.is in the most See supportive attached way. But it is giving Press people Something we do in my organisation—this relates to the tools to become better parents, to live happier lives the question I was asked earlier about tracking the and have less misery, which is good. benefits—is to measurenotice the journey. We don’t just focus on whether we can achieve the specific Q55 Mr Jackson: That was a helpful answer. How outcomes. For example, we sit down at the beginning much sharing is there of the experience of the most with all our families to work out where they are in successful schemes across the country? Is anyone terms of parenting. We use a parenting effectiveness collating and co-ordinating that data to help others? tool called the family star to work out where they are David Holmes: I know there is an ongoing evaluation in terms of setting routines and boundaries for their of the programme and also a range of conferences and children, keeping them safe and making sure they eat learning opportunities for different programmes. I well. While we work with them we measure how far suppose where I have found particular benefit is in they are making progress. At the end of the running a number of different schemes within the intervention, whatever has happened in relation to the same organisation, because then we can benchmark payment-by-results outcomes, we can also see how internally what we are doing and learn from one the family’s parenting has moved on. another. But I think the opportunity to understand the Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 9
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
range of different things that have been shown to work life happens, doesn’t it?—they will be able to interpret through this programme is hugely valuable and rich what is happening for the family. We find, often, it is material that we must use as the programme continues not the intervention but preparing a family. Say there and expands. is a mental health appointment, or a doctor’s appointment. Okay, go with the family. Make sure that Q56 Justin Tomlinson: Two quick points. You have they go to it. Talk to them about the conclusion, got the experience of engaging across a number of whatever it was, and make sure that any treatment is local authorities, so you see things approached in put into effect. It is about that central co-ordination, different ways. What are the biggest barriers to and it is the fact that somebody is on your side and engagement? Obviously, you have got to work with will be there that gives people the confidence to multiple agencies and we have got two very proactive progress and move on. local authorities here. David Holmes: We have still—this is an old chestnut Q59 Meg Hillier: Welcome. It is good to have a for anyone working in health or social care, or Hackney-based organisation here. A few years ago, I children’s services—an issue with data sharing was talking a lot to schools in my constituency. Rather between agencies. We see a variety of practice there. than buying in the family support that someone like The choice of the key worker is vital, because you you would provide, they found it was cheaper to have to have somebody who has the personality and provide support through a member of staff in the brilliance at building relationships with families and family support unit. Although you are the pioneering other agencies to be able to cut through whatever red project, at some point someone will look at the unit tape or barriers there may be to effect positive change, cost of everything you provide. That will be part of so the interpersonal skills of these workers are the evaluation of value for money. What is the absolutely critical. difference between what you provide and the cut-price But I also think there is momentum behind the version? Is there any point where what you do per programme and that there is an understanding that hour for the person you have just described to Mr intensive family support matters. It is then how you Tomlinson could be cheaper? Or is there only one way situate that within a much broader approach to family of doing it? support that goes across the spectrum of need and David Holmes: I don’t think there is only one way of doesn’t just focus on the areas and families who need doing it. You have to cut your cloth according to the most intensive support. where you are working and the problem you are trying to solve. I think there is a reality that if you have Q57 Justin Tomlinson: This is a long-term people working in these very intensive roles with programme with long-term results. How much of a families, having them as part of a team, having the challenge is it to ensure that you get enough buy-in? support that that team provides, and having the In the short term, it is resource-heavy on financial cost opportunity to discuss their cases and learn from one and staff time—like you said, it is not simply a three- another is often better than just having somebody in month programme in which everything is fine and the an isolated role. There is also something about benefits filter through immediately. Considering that thinking hard about where people are located. You local authorities have annual financial pressures and might have somebody in a school, but perhaps the staff changes, how much of a challenge is it to keep family have had a really bad experience of education everyone looking at the long term? themselves. Maybe they don’t want to go into a David Holmes: I would say it is incumbent, school. There is a need for flexible thinking there. particularly on the voluntary organisation here, to help Also the idea of schools investing in family support with that process, because we can show, through and seeing themselves as having a responsibility for Thisreally good is data an collection, embargoed the difference that we are advancethat is absolutely right. copy. Then, I think, you just try to making over time. We can help to makefor the embargo case for work out the details service model that will have the most whyNot local investment to be should bepublished put in family support. inimpact any on families. form I would not just lay this at the door of local government; it is a shared mission to help these Q60 Stephen Barclay: You have identified domestic families andbefore reduce costs much embargo further down the line, time.violence as aSee key issue. attached To what extent do you alwaysPress because we have all seen the intergenerational cycles encourage prosecution or to what extent—you talked of problems that just go on and on. about support—would you not encourage notice prosecution? Q58 Justin Tomlinson: These families all have their David Holmes: It will always depend on the unique challenges, so every single programme has to individual circumstances of cases. Is this something be individually tailored for them. One of the biggest that is happening now? Has it happened further back challenges with having so many different agencies is in somebody’s life? Is it a repeating pattern, such as that so many different people can play a part in where a woman has a history of violent partners? It turning that family around, but obviously having so depends on the individual case, but in working with many people means turnover in those staff. How do domestic violence we would always want to address you keep a consistent approach when someone who that, if that is the absolute root of what is happening might have understood the challenge moves on? in that family. Unless you address the domestic David Holmes: Through that key link person and violence, how will anybody move on? How will you really effective co-ordination. If you have the right get into work? How will your anxiety and depression person co-ordinating support, then if things change— reduce? How will your children’s problems change? Ev 10 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
It is core to understanding exactly what is going on to think through that to help this family to move on. and then making sure that the woman, the man, and Is it about trying to address the poverty, is it about the rest of the family have the tools they need to benefits maximisation, is it about, as I said before, address it and move on. If that means getting the housing? It is about what you have to do to make real perpetrator out of the house, then that is the right thing and lasting progress. to do. Q63 Chair: Do you interact with the DWP Q61 Mr Jackson: I was just going to say that. The programme? objectives could be mutually exclusive. Is the David Holmes: No. objective always to keep the family together through thick and thin? That seems to run counter to what Q64 Stephen Barclay: Do you interact with the should happen when a woman—it is usually women— police, in terms of them wearing head cams to is in danger of violence from her partner. facilitate them prosecuting when victims of domestic David Holmes: The objectives are to take a long, hard violence won’t prosecute? look at what is happening in the family and sort the David Holmes: We certainly have good working family’s problems out. That will be whatever is relationships with the police. That is really important. necessary to help that family to move on. It is not about sticking plasters. It is about real, long-term, Q65 Stephen Barclay: When the police are called to transformative change, but that may be over such a a domestic violence incident, do you find that wide range of areas, not just very specific outcomes. increasingly they are wearing head cameras, so that they can gather the evidence? An issue that Q62 Mr Jackson: To move the family around as magistrates have raised with me has been that victims well. One of the experiences I picked up on was ex- of domestic violence will often not prosecute. offenders coming out. If they come back into the same David Holmes: I could ask my co-ordinators that neighbourhood with the same drug dealers, and the question and get back to you. same criminal fraternity, they will get back on the conveyor belt. My local constabulary has taken to Q66 Chair: Thanks very much indeed to all of you. moving people to different counties to break the cycle. We were a bit longer than I thought we would be, David Holmes: I agree, but this is where you have to but it was very useful and very helpful, so thank you have a broader perspective, because so many of the very much. families we work with are living in poverty. You have
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Louise Casey, Director General, Troubled Families, Department for Communities and Local Government, Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions and Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, and Head of the Home Civil Service, gave evidence.
Q67 Chair: Welcome. Sorry we kept you waiting. on this—that none of them interacted with the DWP This is the first time for you, Louise, so welcome. programme. Mr Bacon: You have been before, haven’t you? Sir Bob Kerslake: Shall I kick off, Chair, and then ThisChair: Notis with an us. embargoed advancecolleagues can join me?copy. When we started working on Louise Casey: Not with this group, but I have been the troubled families programme, work had already before the PAC in previous lives. for embargogot to quite adetails point in the DWP ESF initiatives. One MrNot Bacon: Thatto is be what Ipublished meant. I remember you inwas ahead any of the otherform in its development, to the point from the rough sleepers initiative. that there was quite well progressed work on the Louise Casey: Yes. tendering process and so on. The judgment came Mr Bacon:beforeIt might have beenembargo a few years ago, but time.when we wereSee making attached a decision about going Press with you’re not new to the Committee. the troubled families programme: do you stop one, do Louise Casey: Stillnotice nervous, though. you hold off on the other, or do you let both proceed and then focus on how you join them up as effectively Q68 Chair: Let me start by saying that around the as you possibly can? On balance, the desire to proceed Committee table there is general support for the aims apace and with scale made it the right judgment to of both programmes. Our job is to look at whether proceed with the two schemes and make sure they they are cost-effective. We recognise that we are joined up. coming in halfway through, so the judgments will be direction of travel, rather than absolute judgment on If you look at the story, quite a lot has been done to where you are. That is the context in which we are make sure that happens, most particularly the 152 staff trying to interrogate: where we are at the moment. who have been put into local authorities from— I suppose the issue that hits you when you read the NAO Report is: why on earth do we have two separate Q69 Chair: None of whom knew about DWP or programmes trying to do the same thing? I just don’t worked with DWP. I can’t see the join-up. It didn’t get it. It was interesting—Robert will want to come in feel joined up to me. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 11
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Sir Bob Kerslake: What they would say is that those Sir Bob Kerslake: No, it is the same families. Just to particular people’s connection with the DWP make a point on that, the work that has been done in programme, and from my experience, the staff DWP to identify on their systems families who are in seconded in, have been very positively received, and the troubled families group has been quite strong.1 Jim, sitting on my right, made that point. They have been in the teams for a year now, and their presence Q75 Chair: Then why don’t local authorities know is really being felt. about them? Sir Bob Kerslake: Something like 51,000 of those Q70 Chair: I will give Robert a chance to come in who have been identified and been worked with are on this, but he said he used Jobcentre Plus people, on the DWP system, so I am not going to suggest that but when I said, “Do you interact with the ESF/DWP you could not do more to align the systems and work programme?” he said no. together, but as Robert has said, a lot has been done Sir Bob Kerslake: What he did say, though, was that to get as much joined up as we possibly can. The the connection between the two Departments was problem with what you are suggesting is that, in a strong and that the secondments had been very sense, we would have had to halt the programme that effective. DWP had under way, or alternatively delay the Robert Devereux: It depends on which staff we are programme for troubled families. Neither would have talking about, though. The thing that we did together been a good outcome. Having got going on both in March last year was put Jobcentre Plus people into programmes and learned a lot along the way—that local authorities; we have put 150 of these people, would be the honest answer—we do now have quite who are called troubled families employment a lot of connection, both in terms of data between the advisers, into local authorities. It has been two systems and of practical working on the ground. extraordinarily well received in two directions— Q76 Chris Heaton-Harris: Actually, I think you are Q71 Fiona Mactaggart: Any additional body in a working together, and I have an example of it in my local authority is usually well received, as we heard constituency, and not a deliberate one—well, it is deliberate, but not for this. The Jobcentre Plus has in relation to the pain of the cuts in Liverpool, frankly. moved into local council offices and it is a one-stop Robert Devereux: I have had the pain of cuts in shop. Daventry district, God bless them, are at the Jobcentre Plus, too. These 150 have gone in, and my forefront, and the regional Jobcentre manager is perception of these two programmes—the question driving as many of these projects forward as he you started with—is that having started, what we have possibly can, which is very good news. But the now worked out is a pretty effective way of working problem in Northamptonshire has been agreeing on together. who is a troubled family. Once they have agreed it is quite easy—well, perhaps not quite easy, but the Q72 Chair: It does not feel like it when you read that movement has been there, and it has been very joined Report. Are you working with the same families? Are up, and it seems to be working, slowly but surely. The you working with different families? trouble with identification surprised me. Why is that? Robert Devereux: With respect, there is one Louise Casey: I do not think that is to do with the paragraph about the stuff that we have done since European Social Fund programme. What happened in March 2013, and quite a lot about the stuff that set it Northamptonshire is that they are one of the areas up, so the learning in this is how you bring the two that, in my view, were not really used to working with together, because two different things are going on this particular cohort of families, and they started here. quite slowly in terms of trying to grip what they This is an embargoed advancethought was going on.copy. Q73 Chair: But we are halfwayfor through embargo the As you heard details from previous witnesses, you can get programme,Not whichto isbe why it ispublished a good time to look at invery caughtany up in form a kind of “data approach” to this on it from the perspective of whether it is value for a significant scale. Local authorities that had a track money. All the way through, I could not work out record in running family intervention from 2005–06— whether youbefore were defining theembargo same families. Is there time.which some See of you aroundattached the table have—knew Press duplication? I just could not get any feel for why we where they were at, knew the type of families they are running two programmes. With the greatest were going for and knew how to do it, through things respect, Sir Bob,notice you have an ESF application in— like community safety partnerships, housing, and you want the money, I get that—and you just make children’s services, as with Colette and others. Some sure that you design it so that it is part of an integrated started slowly, particularly where you have a county whole, rather than running two separate programmes and then districts, so you are also a different type of with different outcomes. Your outcome under ESF is authority. It is no secret that Northamptonshire has 22% in work, and Louise’s is rather different—kids been one of the areas I have been concerned about. I back at school and so on. am much happier with the position that they are now Sir Bob Kerslake: In terms of the point about whether in, but they started slowly. In fairness to them, they working together is actually happening, I have seen are using it as a way to think about how they examples, and it really is happening in a practical way. restructure their services much more fundamentally. 1 Witness note: The ESF Families provision has a broader Q74 Chair: Is it the same families, or are you eligibility than the Troubled Families programme, there is choosing different families? some overlap but they are not always the same families. Ev 12 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
People like me have to get the balance right in that psychometric testing, let alone one of my families. scenario. Can I work with you to change it?” Those are the sorts The troubled families programme is about trying to of things that will make a huge difference, because it get local areas to see how they can restructure is bringing our families, who are miles away from the services, so that what you heard about earlier—10, 15, employment market, and people like employers closer. 20 agencies circling these families and not really They are not the easy end. They are not creaming getting any real change in them—does not continue. off the top. They are people who haven’t worked for At the same time, I need to make sure that they are generations. Of course the figures are low on getting keeping the momentum up on actually helping them in jobs, and for a sustained period of time, but individual families and getting through the numbers. getting one of these families into a job for three or six In your constituencies, which I have visited and I have months can create monumental change in that family. colleagues who are in close contact with them, my It has been painful, but it is worth it. sense is that the data-sharing issue went a bit beyond the issue around DWP. Q79 Mr Bacon: Can I ask about one thing you just Sir Bob Kerslake: One important point to add is that said about data sharing? You call it a “big win”; the in my experience the troubled families programme is previous witnesses said it was an issue that there was one of the most joined-up programmes across still variable practice. You guys, between you, are the Government. We have six Departments involved, and Government. You are the people who ought to be able on the ground we are seeing a high level of joining to decide and, if necessary, send a little statutory up between partnerships. However, the level of instrument down the corridor in this place—somebody development of partnership varies from area to area. will deal with it in 20 minutes; it happens all the Some have had to work much harder at getting to a time—to solve these problems. Why is it that people shared understanding of the issues before they could are so recalcitrant? I had a meeting with the move on. In my view, that is a good thing, because Information Commissioner about something else, and it has forced them to think about the issue from a I said to him, “Do you get annoyed when you hear common perspective. the phrase ‘data protection’?” He said, “Yes, I do. I get particularly annoyed when they say it to me. I feel Q77 Chair: Louise, do you oversee the people who like saying, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’” This is an get funded through the DWP programme? area that has been a perennial problem and it is, by Louise Casey: Yes. definition, “the authorities” who have the power to sort it out. Why does it continue? Why does it persist? Q78 Chair: So you oversee all these private That is probably for Sir Bob to answer, but it may be contractors? for all of you. Louise Casey: No, I don’t oversee the European Sir Bob Kerslake: I will kick off. The first point to Social Fund programme. That is done out of DWP make is that we have already made, as Louise said, central, but obviously I am aware of the setting-up of some quite significant advances on data sharing. To this programme and how it has worked. It is one part be honest, often the barrier to data sharing is not legal of a much wider programme. My sense is that DWP at all; it is cultural. It is history; it is practice. One of was heading down this route because of the European the big things that the programme has sought to do Social Fund. It had criteria that it needed to meet and is test, really, which of these issues—these so-called it pressed ahead. We meanwhile did a much bigger reasons why you cannot share data—are just down to programme. The ambition of the programme is huge. culture and practice, and which are down to people It is 120,000 families and £458 million, and we are being inhibited by statutory regulation. A lot has been Thisgoing for is very an significant embargoed changes in each and every advancedone to move it on. copy. A very practical example— one of those families; work is just one element of that. I know what you are saying, and I understandfor embargo what the Q80 Ian Swales: detailsIn terms of protection, is it the NAONot Report said,to and be we have published rubbed along trying to incase that—any form make this right. Where we got to a year ago is, to be Sir Bob Kerslake: To be honest, all of those things go honest, an extraordinarily significant moment in on in this area. The evidence in the troubled families public services.before We started embargo out with data sharing, time.programme See is that quite attached a lot has been achieved Press to which we managed to get off DWP really early on. break down those barriers in joint cause. You are left Iain Duncan Smith agreed—a historic moment in my then with some issues that genuinely require legal career in working innotice these services—that we would be change, and you will know that there are some able to get DWP data on benefits, which none of us thoughts to see what might be done on that. has had in all the time I have been working. That was Robert Devereux: We have made two regulatory a great win. A year later, we managed to get human changes. The first enabled me to send data to local beings out of Jobcentre Plus, into troubled families authorities about the nature of benefit receipts, which teams, or whatever they are called locally. Because of is one of the criteria for Louise’s programme. The that, we now have 51,000 individuals marked by second one enabled them to tell me who is on their DWP as being from my families. That is huge step troubled families programme, which is how I got the forward. So, no, not perfect, but we are now in a better 50,000 names on the machine. place, and it is actually quite exciting, in terms of how I think it is true that if you want, as a previous witness public services work with each other. said, not to have 10 people turning up on someone’s It is great for me to meet, in Bristol, the woman who doorstep, you have to have multi-agency work back went to Asda and said, “I couldn’t get through your in the office. The data protection rules mean that there Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 13
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
are data controllers right across local authorities Robert Devereux: Because we’ve redistributed to looking after the data on this thing or that thing. One other good things. of the things we have provided to local authorities is a guidance document on how data protection works Q87 Guto Bebb: The ESF funding? and who you have to go to in your local authority to Robert Devereux: Yes. cut through some of this stuff, because we have opened up the gateways that are necessary to pass Q88 Chair: Reading between the lines, the ESF between the Department for Work and Pensions and money is being used to subsidise the Work local authorities. As for what local authorities then do programme, isn’t it, Robert? internally to make sure they all understand what you Robert Devereux: No. can share if you are in, say, the children’s unit, the Chair: It is, because you are putting outcomes from debt unit or the housing unit, that is stuff where some the Work programme into the— people are better than others, but we have tried as much as possible to cut through that. Q89 Guto Bebb: It shouldn’t be as simple as that— which is why I’m asking the question. Q81 Chair: If you were all under one programme, Robert Devereux: Of the money that we were the problem would disappear. allocated, something in the order of £100 million has Robert Devereux: But that would not fix local gone back into people who have returned from the authorities. Work programme, not into the Work programme, and we have put further money into NEETs—another £40 Q82 Guto Bebb: The Chair has just mentioned that million—to help with offenders and some other pilots. there should be one programme rather than two, but We have not looked at the £200 million and said, Louise Casey mentioned in passing that the DWP “Let’s send that back to Europe”; we have got on and programme was created because it was going after used it sensibly. ESF funding. To what extent did the fact that ESF funding is part of the funding of your programme Q90 Fiona Mactaggart: We have known through mean that you felt inclined to go down the route of research and experience over the years, and we heard having two rather than one? Was it a reaction to the it from the previous panel, that the critical thing with funding stream, rather than people’s actual needs? this group of families is joined-up working, instead of Robert Devereux: It is true that it is funded out of the the parcelled out bits of working that we have. We ESF, and the ESF has a particular time frame, so we have to recommend how this programme could needed to know what to do with it. The principal become better value for money. It seems clear to me reason why the Department set off down this route that, according to the NAO’s Report at paragraph 12, is because the Prime Minister decided we should do there has been poor integration of the programmes. At something with those 120,000 and—this is my paragraph 2.29, if you just look at the weeks in department—we got on and did something about it. between decisions, your heart breaks a bit, because you would not have wanted it to be like that—you Q83 Guto Bebb: I will rephrase the question. If it would not have wanted a decision in June by the was not for ESF funding, would there have been one DWP, then a decision in October by the DCLG and in programme or two? November by the other Department, and so on, so that they are running side by side and are not integrated. I Robert Devereux: I do not think that the existence want to know what you have done to join the of the ESF programme is the thing that creates new programmes up from here on—that is question No. 1. programmes, but the need to take action on people Question No. 2 is, knowing that we need not just local Thiswho need is further an support. embargoed advance copy. government and people who work in Work and for embargoPensions, but details also the police, the health authority and Q84Not Chair: Butto one be of you ispublished looking at 2015 on, as inso on, whatany are we form doing to get data from those bodies I understand it, and one of you is not. to help this work? Robert Devereux: Because we have learnt—because Sir Bob Kerslake: I shall deal with the first question at the pointbefore at which we were embargo doing all of this, we time.and Louise canSee deal with attached the second one. You Press never had started ahead of the process. start from a perfect point, when you do this— Sir Bob Kerslake: For me, as influential was the stage Fiona Mactaggart: But we are trying to guide you reached in the programme.notice Things like the tendering about how to improve in future. process and the expectations of potential providers Sir Bob Kerslake: I think it is important to make that were as important as the issue of ESF. point, because the alternative was not to have done something on troubled families. We talked earlier Q85 Guto Bebb: Just quickly on the issue of ESF, in about the ways in which we have looked to join it up view of the fact that there is an underperformance on better. There have been adjustments to the way in the programme—obviously it is payment by results, which the programme works within DWP, to align the so you are not spending the money—how much of the two programmes better. There has also been the ESF element of the budgets will have to be handed sharing of data that we talked about, so that we can back? ensure that we have data in both directions about how Robert Devereux: None. things are going. There have been the secondments, which we spoke about earlier, of staff into the local Q86 Guto Bebb: How can you explain that then? authority teams. Those are three very practical ways Ev 14 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
in which joining up or alignment has happened within health data safely and well around a particularly the context of two programmes. vulnerable cohort of families without scaring the Louise Casey: Quickly, on continuation of the Work horses. programme, on the work side we absolutely want to keep these Jobcentre Plus staff based in the troubled Q92 Mr Bacon: You will recognise this quote: “We families teams post-2015, because the fact that we need to find out what is happening in relation to all of have got 51,000 markers—to use your language, the data. I don’t think that is about someone’s civil Robert—is brilliant. We have done a join-up. We rights. I think it’s about their right to get help and the know—I know—on a case-by-case basis that there are system’s right to challenge them to take it.” You are 51,000 of my 120,000 where something is joining up saying that unless you have all of that, the system locally. The data tell me that. That is very powerful, cannot operate effectively, or not as effectively as it and I think that that is down to the Jobcentre Plus should. The remit of this Committee is foursquare secondees, so I will want that to continue no matter effectiveness. what happens with ESF. Louise Casey: Are you quoting me, just so I know? The thing that they underplayed, when they were That’s me, is it? talking to you, is their tremendous achievement in Mr Bacon: Yes. pulling together. I sat in one of those meetings in Louise Casey: Well, I was right. Joking aside, what is Leeds that Jim talked about. A deputy head teacher, really frustrating for families is when they have to tell the woman in charge of behaviour in the school, seven different agencies that the same incident has turned up, alongside someone from a children’s centre occurred in their lives, because the children’s centre, and the police officer, and they talked about the list of the health visitor, the police officer and somebody else people who they had generated data for—which came are not prepared to share that data. That is happening from the police, health and other areas, particularly less and less when it comes to the troubled families driven by the local authority. Within that, they talked programme, partly because it is of its moment— about the type of cases that they thought that they people know that that is crazy. It is crazy for the wanted to get to first and about how they would go families and it is crazy for the system. Of course I about doing it. think that families need to have a right to make sure Coming back to what you asked us, Mr Bacon, on that that data is shared effectively, and the system data sharing as a national issue, I would say yes, it is needs to be persuaded, cajoled and, if necessary, told an issue. Some of it is definitely cultural, but there is to do it. a sense that people do not feel they have permission to share data on a national basis. When I am out and Q93 Fiona Mactaggart: I think you are telling us about around the country, I tell them, “Damn the that in this face-to-face networking of a local area, culture and get on with it!” The thing is, they sit there is beginning to be a willingness to share data. I behind their desks thinking, “Someone back at the wonder whether the people who aren’t turning up— centre is going to say that we shouldn’t be sharing sometimes the police, sometimes the NHS—are more this data.” What we are looking for as we go into an reserved about it. We have to come up with some expanded programme is permissive legislation, which recommendations that say how this could work better says that it is okay for you to share this data. As long and be more cost effective. I think, just like Mr Bacon, as I have been in this business—it is now about 30 that the key to it working better and being more cost years—people have stood behind the words “data effective is finding ways of sharing that work. One of sharing” in the same way that they stand behind the problems in this programme that we have “health and safety”. They are thrown at you identified is that having two programmes side by side Thisconstantly. is an embargoed advancewasn’t the greatest waycopy. to start. We have heard that you have done your best to overcome that, and you Q91 Mr Bacon: That was my point—thefor embargo culture are being quite details Pollyanna-ish about it, which is very hasn’tNot changed. to be published innice. Butany from listening form to you, I think that you agree Louise Casey: It is changing in the Troubled Families with me that there is a problem with NHS data and a programme, partly because the way we have set this problem with police data. Arguably, one of the programmebefore up means that embargo people have to get time.recommendations See that weattached ought to be making Press is that information from education and they have to get there should be some kind of national drive to ensure information on youth crime. They are all desperate to that, locally, it is not only the two Departments that share what is happeningnotice on drugs, alcohol, mental have learnt through this process that are doing it, but health and particularly domestic violence, and of that the other people are, too—the ones who say, course they want to look at what is happening with “Oh, no.” children at risk, children in need and children on child Louise Casey: That is completely right. We need a protection plans. That is one of the biggest uses of sense of giving permission—a permissive sense of their discretionary filter. It is in all of their interests to giving permission that that is an okay thing to do. It share that data on a case-by-case and local authority goes right across the system. It is not just about health by local authority basis. I think that out there, people or the DWP: it is within local authorities. I have some want this and it is happening. DWP is not the issue. local authorities that do not share data between It is this stuff. different parts of their thing, because they will be As we go into the future, I am slightly worried about hiding behind something that says, “We’re not really the need to sort out with the police and, in particular, allowed to do it.” My view is that the troubled the health sector how we are going to be able to share families programme is right out there. We are trying Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 15
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
to push forward and change things on a family-by- others. So they are less likely to go off the radar as family basis. We look around, and we think, “Blimey! they move. This is getting in the way. We need to do something Some of the stuff which we have done through the about it.” This is one of the areas where we are troubled families programme is to work incredibly pushing colleagues within Whitehall to say that we hard on pulling local authorities and their partners might need something more on data sharing, and that together. Last year, we did something like 500 to 600 might include something in a Bill that comes out of people around the country at least twice a year, where this House that says, “Get on with it.” we have gone out and talked to them about issues like how to identify the families early on and how to make Q94 Fiona Mactaggart: So, Sir Bob, what are you that easy for themselves. But we have also put people doing? in a room together regionally. Some of them have not Sir Bob Kerslake: The key thing is what Louise said. met before, but it is quite a powerful way of sharing First of all, we need to find out on the ground what what they are doing and why they are doing it. barriers people are experiencing. Louise and I visited Amyas Morse: I just want to put a modest proposal to one of the teams, and one of our first questions was, you based on Miss Casey’s remarks. What has “What is getting in the way of you doing even better happened so far has been in the nature of pathfinders than you are doing?” The start of it is getting a very to a degree. It has turned out a bit differently to what precise sense of where the true barriers are in relation you thought and it is good that you reacted positively to data sharing—these teams know what the to that. But effectively, looking at the original targets problems are. and measures that you set, which are not being fully The second thing is to understand how much of that achieved, instead of spending a lot of time talking is a problem of culture and how much is a problem of about that, perhaps we should say, “Well, when are confidence—they could do it but they fear that they you going to put in some measures now that you are can’t. What is left then is a genuine legal and seeing this reconfigure. It is going to become a single regulatory barrier that we need to overcome. So, this departmental programme and have a number of is about specifics and we have more work to do ahead different features. We are going to need to understand of the next programme in order to say where we still what the value for money is. Is there some intent to have genuine barriers that central Government could put some planning parameters in place?” help to overcome. But I would like to start from the In effect, is this a restart or a re-basing of how we practical experience of the teams on the ground, rather should be looking at results from the programme, than we invent it from up here. rather than saying, “Let’s look at what was originally Robert Devereux: I would be in favour of thought of.”? Some of these local authorities had to recommending more. Could we be slightly careful? I take much longer to get data together; to be able to have not sent the entire benefit data for every local approach the issue. They have told us that. Do you really feel that you can perform according to the authority to the local authority just in case one of them original parameters? It is going to mean an awful lot is a troubled family. I would rather not have my health of performance in the last two years of this records sent across to the local authority just in case I programme, isn’t it? am a troubled family. So, if you want to open the Louise Casey: Yes, is the answer. gateway, you have to decide who is on point to say, Amyas Morse: Yes what? I am trying to be helpful. “I have identified Mr Devereux as a troubled family Louise Casey: Yes, we will deliver and yes, we will for some reason and now, police, health, have you got stick to why we set this up in the first place. This is a anything to declare?” Otherwise you will keep families programme that is attempting to change the bumping into data control issues. The good people lives of families very fundamentally. It is not a work Thiswho worry is about an data embargoed control are doing it for good advance copy. programme; it is a families programme. We are sitting reasons. for embargoon 92,000 familiesdetails out of the 120,000 that local Not to be published inauthorities any have theform names and addresses of. We know Q95 Chair: A lot of these troubled families with who those families are and have been working with challenges move across local authority boundaries, 62,000 of them. And, of course, we have already that is onebefore of the features. Whatembargo about that and how time.turned around—to See use attached the lingo—22,000 of Press those are you making that work? families. The way we have structured the Louise Casey: We have identified 92,000 families. programme—your colleagues know this—is that we They have addressesnotice attached to them. They will went for 35% of the 120,000 in year 1 and we have move, but they share that information very quickly. I gone for 50% in year 2, which we are in at the was talking to Colette outside about the movement moment. We will manage the risk of what you are between Knowsley, Sefton and Liverpool. Basically, talking about, going for 15% in year 3, where also the what you rely on—particularly in the case of a incentive on local authorities to deliver the results is troubled family—is the fact that we are more likely to much greater, because they get a small amount of know who they are and where they are going than all attachment money—I call it up-front incentive the other families out there that you might also worry money—which Colette said was useful and they get about. So, in relation to troubled families, the local the balance in results. authorities are very wise to this and very clear. They It would have been easier for them if we had had a know, because the level of contact with those families cumulative programme that said, “Look, you can start is greater, and we can track them through various small and get bigger.” But it was right for us to say, mechanisms to do with the police, education and “Be bolder about how you go about doing this,” so Ev 16 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
we were bold in our intentions, asking them to come The reason why we put in payments for progress in at 35% in year 1, and they are now at 50%. The measures is precisely what the gentleman said: if the progress so far on the troubled families programme— issue for a family is sorting out domestic violence, in my view, down to local authorities and their then we had better make sure that we try to sort out partners—is impressive. I know that you are saying domestic violence before we do something else. We that we are underperforming by, I think, 13% and have not pitched this programme, despite the way it now 9%— has been constructed, as purely about employment; Amyas Morse: I am not saying it is unimpressive; I this is an employability and employment programme am just saying that what you said you would do is not and we are trying to move people towards being done. That is not a bad thing, but don’t you employment. We have consciously chosen to say, need to think about that and say, “Well, are we “Tell us what sorts of interventions you think would measuring the right things?”? move people closer to the labour market and, in due Louise Casey: What I said we would do is turn around course, into the labour market, and we are happy to the lives of 120,000 families by May 2015 and we pay for you to do some of that preparatory work.” intend to do that. That is what the progress measures are. In a world in which my CLG colleagues have simply Q96 Chair: Actually, I think the issue is stronger on gone for attachment fees, where you get some cash the DWP programme, because, as I read it—correct for attaching, we have said, “Actually, there is no me if I am wrong—you are constantly moving the attachment in this—we will pay you for doing goalposts to use the money. I do not mind about that, something.” Whatever view you take of the if it is using up the ESF money, but how you get intervention that might help with debt, drugs and the referrals through to your programme changes: the domestic violence, it is difficult not to see, for a very providers can now decide who they put into the complex family, that knocking those things over one programme. I cannot work out if this is different from at a time gets them on the path to employment. the Work programme. Are you picking up a different The only reason why we changed the payment basis cohort of people? is because if you engage with people on an You also change who is responsible for delivering, in expectation of what they are going to receive and then that the Work programme is now responsible for you find out that referrals have gone down, you have delivering 4,000 of the outcomes. Again, I can see the to produce something or otherwise they will be ESF advantage of doing that, because you shift some significantly out of pocket. We have not paid any more of the funding for the Work programme on to the ESF, money for three progress measures than we set out in but that is not what you originally did. You get the contract. We have simply enabled people to start outcome payments on different issues now in DWP being paid for one and two, rather than just for three. from what you got before. Your internal audit was Several of you have asked about the programme’s extremely critical of you. Is it all about ensuring you value for money. The sums of money we are spending spend the money, or are you really changing the nature are typically, for a job outcome, on average £1,500. of what you are doing? Many of the families are on weekly benefit costs, Robert Devereux: It is not just about how we can which are £300 to £400, and, in one that I have seen, spend the money. What the facts make perfectly clear £960. We are talking about a week or two’s benefit in is the amount of referrals that providers thought they many cases. If those week or two’s benefit costs have were going to get, having talked to local authorities actually moved the domestic violence or the debt issue to establish that in the first place, have simply not further on, it seems to me you are in quite a good materialised. So we are operating at— space in terms of the value for money. We are not This is an embargoed advancespending tens of thousands copy. of pounds per person here. Q97 Chair: Are they the same people who are on the Sir Bob Kerslake: May I just add, as the accounting Work programme? for embargoofficer for the details troubled families programme, I think RobertNot Devereux: toNo, be the characteristic published of this group inthe fundamentals any ofform the programme are right and have is that we are trying to find people who have even been demonstrated through the success so far, which more constraintbefore than simply embargo being long-term time.I think is impressive.See attached The biggest thing we Press have unemployed. achieved is the level of commitment from local authorities to turn round 120,000 families. Clearly, the Q98 Chair: Arenotice they a different bunch? If I am data you have got covers half the period. We have sitting there in JCP, for example, trying to think more data coming through that will be published in whether I will refer someone to the Work programme March. From what we know now, that is showing or to the ESF troubled families programme—I hate continuing strong progress, so I do not think there is the name—do I, as an official in Barking jobcentre, a need to change the fundamentals. take a different judgment? How do I decide where to The big challenge for us is to continue to work with refer my people? those authorities that are not performing as well as Robert Devereux: A lot of the people who are on the some of the ones we saw today to get their ESF programme are on income support. The Work performance up. That gap is closing, on the evidence programme is deliberately taking JSA cohort and ESA we have, but we have to close it further still. cohort, but a large percentage of ESF is going on people on income support—carers or lone parents—so Q99 Chair: Under the terms of the ESF you have to we are trying to find complementary provision here. meet the 22%, and you are miles from that. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 17
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Robert Devereux: No, we agreed with the ESF that Q105 Mr Bacon: When you have a fast-moving this sort of programme was a reasonable thing for ESF picture with so many different caveats, which could to invest in. The 22% is the going rate that the fund mean that any individual number is inaccurate and or the administrators expect to do. That is based on could shift the figures in any direction for nearly any data back in 2008–09, pre-recession, with groups of reason, and when there has been no opportunity for people who were easier to help. So we set 22%, the National Audit Office to examine or validate them, because at that stage we wanted to be challenging. how much use is it to anybody? We are reaching, in some of the data we published Robert Devereux: The National Audit Office has used yesterday, cohort rates of—on some of the JSA the previous release in its updated figures. groups—12%, 13% or 14%, so it is not 22%. Again, coming back to where we started— Q106 Mr Bacon: Not the one from yesterday. This was dated 28 January, wasn’t it? Q100 Chair: You know how we love it when you Robert Devereux: There were two. Which one are you publish data the day before a hearing, particularly looking at? The markers one? when it is data called experimental— Mr Bacon: The troubled families programme, not the Mr Bacon: Experimental statistics. ESF one. The one with a whole load of caveats. It is Robert Devereux: These figures are moving very Caveat city, Arizona. quickly and you will have noticed the difference in Chair: We will move on. the data we published two months ago. Meg Hillier: I shall resist the temptation to say something positive about those figures. Q101 Chair: Well, you know what we feel about it. Robert Devereux: Do. It is the usual thing. You do it every time. Robert Devereux: With respect, I do not do it every Q107 Meg Hillier: I just feel I might be time. outnumbered by my colleagues on this. I know when I’m beaten. I want to touch briefly on the data. I don’t Q102 Chair: We work with NAO Reports, and we want to reopen the whole data debate, but my local certainly do not work with experimental whatever it authority says that this issue of deep diving into is, because that means it has not been verified by the everyone’s data is challenging. I know that when I ONS. dealt with data as a Minister there was a Cabinet Robert Devereux: With the greatest respect, that is committee looking at positively saying, “data is for not what it means. I have professional statisticians in Government to share” and positively sharing it. the organisation who are allowed, within the I am disappointed and dismayed that we are still arrangements they have, ad hoc statistics. having those battles, but the key question is, is there a plan to have some sort of database for the troubled Q103 Chair: Tom, does it mean it has not been families programme? It does not necessarily need to verified by the ONS? be one database, but some sort of key-code access, so Tom McDonald: There is a process that statistics have that if I were, say, a health visitor, I could access the to go through to be certified as national statistics, and education database—probably not the police national experimental statistics have some shortcomings or computer, that is a slightly different arena. I hesitate differences before they have reached that process at to talk about creating a new database, but could there the sign-off stage. be one accessible route in? Is that something that is Robert Devereux: Not everything that the in the landscape at all for the long-term planning of Government has information on is put out in official this programme? Thisstatistics. is That an has nothing embargoed to do with the quality or advanceLouise Casey: It is oncopy. a locality by locality basis. As the veracity of it. Bob said, we were both up in Knowsley on the Friday for embargobefore last where details they have one register, as they call Q104Not Mr Bacon: toHang be on apublished minute. You say it has init, of theirany currently form identified troubled families, where nothing to do with the quality, but you issued seven they are in the programme and what is happening to caveats in your press release. That presumably means them. It is in a wider sense as well—they are looking seven reasonsbefore why this might embargo be all wrong or might time.at domestic See violence, attached family functioning Press and be a moving feast. “Marker Coverage: Current parenting. coverage of the programme provided by the DWP marker is partial.notice This analysis is based on the Q108 Meg Hillier: But they had to compile that. 51,300 individuals”. Louise Casey: They had to compile it themselves; that Robert Devereux: It is partial in the following sense. is a good thing for them to do, though, not a bad thing, You have just heard that we have put all these advisers if you see what I mean. I still think, without labouring into local authorities. They are working rapidly with it, that though it is great that they do that, we need their colleagues on identification, as per the data- health and police at a national level to give permission sharing request that you have just made of us. As to people locally to pitch in with their own things currently stand today, it was at 50,000. Two information. Most people are doing it at a local level, months ago, it was at 20,000. There is a huge change but that would be good as we move into the next going on. The only reason I wondered whether it programme. I have to remind you, though, that we would be best to put it out is because it is moving have identified 92,000 families across these types of fast, and I do not want to leave you with the criteria, so as much as it has been a frustration—I impression that it is not. have probably shared more of that frustration than I Ev 18 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
should have—nevertheless, it is wholesale forward Everybody likes to talk about data sharing, but that is from where we were 12 or 18 months ago. not the problem. You heard Jim from Leeds; they have learned so much about how, even within the local authority, they could Q111 Meg Hillier: It might be a Westminster bubble get some of this done better. The clarity of the scheme discussion. I want to raise one practical thing, though. is that we are trying to get to the most problematic Let’s say that you are in London and you move from, families that cause the most problems—have say, Hackney just to the neighbouring borough of problems and cause problems, are troubled and are Islington. The Met is in one place, but most of the troubling—that has been the sharpness in the other bodies are not. How does the data set move? programme. The other thing to remember is that in That may be a bit detailed for you to answer, or is it order to claim their money they have to be able to something you are thinking about, because it is a prove that they are in education and that they are challenge? reducing crime. So the whole data thing has been Louise Casey: I would feel nervous about being too quite a steep learning curve for everybody, but it is know-it-all about that, Meg, to be honest, but my clearly the right way for the public services to go. sense is that certainly between, say, Hackney and Sir Bob Kerslake: It is really important that we don’t Islington, it would not be a problem, because the get too downhearted. From what I saw in Knowsley, teams are linked in with each other and people follow it has moved on in leaps and bounds since I was a them. The other thing I want to say anecdotally is that chief executive in Sheffield. The level of collaboration I do not feel a huge amount of movement in these on known individuals is in a different place. families. They have lived on estates in particular areas for a long, long time. There is some movement, but Q109 Fiona Mactaggart: May I ask one question they are not running around the country. about those individuals? Are you confident that Meg Hillier: Okay. That’s very helpful. appearing on such a register does not give them Louise Casey: Anecdotally, it doesn’t feel that way. problems when it comes, for example, to getting loans and to other bits of their lives? Q112 Meg Hillier: I’m sorry, Chair, but I have quite Louise Casey: The irony is that they are on a few things to whizz through. The answers could be everybody’s registers for everything already. If only I shorter to some of these questions. was starting with them being great and not committing The measurements of success for education and crime and not being stuffed in children’s services. employment are potentially quite long term. In the time scale of the programme, you are measuring Q110 Fiona Mactaggart: Are you confident that this success, but there is also a longer-term time scale. Is is not adding to those problems? there a point at which people drop off your national radar? I ask that because value for money is really Louise Casey: I am absolutely confident it is the other important. If somebody is meeting your national way around. The irony is that intervention through this criteria, but then they drop off a month later, will you scheme into these families is life-transforming and it still follow them, even though the money does not gets them into a significantly more positive place. follow at that point, because there is still a saving to They have people surrounding them who actually turn be made for the taxpayer and for the family? up at these various programmes, courses and Louise Casey: Yes. I am very keen to come to savings interviews that they do in order to get them through and money, because that is a really important part of it. If anything, I sometimes feel that we worry too what the programme is about, but in terms of what much about this stuff. The most fantastic people do you are asking, I think Jim Hopkinson from Leeds Thisthis stuff. is They an are called embargoed family intervention workers advancestarted to talk about copy. it. These people manage the or family support workers. They work their magic cases; they manage the families; they work with the with these families in so many differentfor ways, embargo and one families. At somedetails time during that relationship, they wayNot is that theyto get be consent published and they say to them, inmay claimany a result. form That does not mean to say that “Look, you’re facing extraordinary difficulties. You’re they walk away from those families, because they going to end up being evicted from your house. You have no incentive whatever to do that, because the may end upbefore with your kids embargo being taken away. Your time.minute the familiesSee drop attached back into problems, their Press cost kids are up to their eyeballs in trouble. Take help from goes back up. this person, and we’ll help you through it.” They are There is a division in my mind between working the sorts of conversationsnotice that are had with the through the 120,000 families, changing the families families. The families are not saying, “I don’t want and doing it for a generation of children—that is why you to share my data.” Honest to God they’re not. If we pitched it so hard in the comprehensive spending they were, we would be running a different type of review last year that this would go beyond the life programme. The families are saying, “Would you all cycle of this Parliament; we are all pushing towards get lost so I can get on with my life?”, and we say to trying to change things over three to five-plus years— them, “We’re not going anywhere till you change the and the evaluation, which looks at a much longer and way you’re behaving, you get your kids to school and much wider set of success factors. Success for me in you let us help you.” That is the dynamic. The tension relation to the 120,000 families is a lot wider and a in the scheme is about having it out with the families lot bigger than a reduction in crime or a significant in a very honest way, saying, “Look, you’re up to your improvement in school attendance. They are really eyes in this difficulty. Please let us help you.” That is powerful signals that something really good has where the tension comes; it is not about data sharing. happened in the household. Let’s say that I am dealing Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 19
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
with a highly dysfunctional household. There is a small amount of money for a local authority; they are drug-addicted or alcohol-dependent mother who is not doing it for this money, they are doing it because living with endless domestic violence and goes from it matters to change these people’s lives. partner to partner. In terms of getting her to see that getting her kids to school is essential, we are not doing Q114 Meg Hillier: It saves them other money pieces of work with her; we are not having perhaps. In terms of the lessons learned about rolling conversations with her. We are saying, “We need to out best practice, this is where, nationally, you have a help you to go from here to getting your kids into real focus on it. When the last Government were in school,” so of course payment by results adds a power, there were a number of anti-poverty sharpness to this programme that nothing I have ever intervention strategies, some of which worked well done or been involved with before does, because the and some that did not, but there was not really a tough point is not how many bits of work you have done or analysis of which ones worked best and the decision how many home visits you have made; it is whether to drop the ones that did not work. How tough are you the person has changed and is now getting their kids going to be on that analysis and do you have any to school. But what that signals, Meg, is a much wider future plans to look at doing this for individuals? At change in what is happening in the household, so our my surgery on Monday there were individuals who evaluation goes further. It looks, first, at a far wider would never qualify under the family criteria—some group and, secondly, at a far wider range of problems, would not qualify because they did not have teenage because clearly we are interested in things such as children and that is another issue that we do not have domestic violence, which I think one member of the time to go into—but they equally are costing the Committee asked a colleague about earlier. system a lot of money and need support. Is there a plan—maybe this is for Sir Bob—for rolling this on Q113 Meg Hillier: According to the NAO Report, further? 43% of local authorities are budgeting on up-front Sir Bob Kerslake: If Louise wants to come in payments only. Do you have worries about that—that specifically on troubled families and I will come back perhaps they are not confident that they will meet the on the wider point. targets, they are just not planning that money in or Louise Casey: I suppose I feel very passionately that they are not going to use payment by results for this the reason that this programme works is because it programme? I am not quite sure how I read that. takes real families with real addresses with real Louise Casey: Bob might want to talk about his problems and it gets everybody to sort them out. The experience in Sheffield, but I will give you my sense most important thing that it does is to get family of this. First, that survey was done quite early on. intervention going into the household. I think that the My sense is that local authorities are not fooled. They interaction between the state and the family is very know that these families are high-cost families. There different. I call it the five factors of family is a difference between prudent budgeting—keeping intervention: it is challenging, it is assertive, it is their directors of finance happy and what you heard practical, it is trusting, it is the dedicated worker. It is about from Leeds—and actually knowing that they one plan, one worker and a commonly agreed agenda. need to turn around and change these families. Of All those things sound really easy to say but, in the course, they signed up to deliver the numbers that we history of working with these families, they are well- want and they are absolutely clear that they need to nigh impossible to achieve. This programme gives do that through a system, transforming the way that real welly behind it. they work with families. In the age of localism, one thing that has been quite I think that people underestimate it—we have interesting for me—because I have worked under Thisexamples is like an the health embargoed service in Leicestershire advancedifferent programmes copy. including the ones that you have sticking millions into the joint pot, we have Peter described—is that the relationship between our central Fahy in Greater Manchester who hasfor seconded embargo police team and the details local authorities and their partners is officersNot into familyto interventionbe published teams, and we have inabsolutely any vital. Becauseform this is a really hard thing for Wandsworth, where they have mental health workers, them to do, I think that we work together in a very clinical psychiatrists and somebody that specialises in intense and close way. We are relentlessly doing visits, behaviourbefore of children. The amountembargo of gifts in kind time.making phone See calls and attached listening to what is working, Press and joint working at this stage in the programme is we are trying to reflect back and we are a very hands- incredibly impressive. I think that there is a difference on programme. I know that it is an odd thing to say between people managingnotice their finances and getting because it is a PBR, but the relationship between us on with the job and what is actually happening. and the local authorities is absolutely vital. I think that Sir Bob Kerslake: Just to reinforce that point, I think that is why it works. that many authorities will take a prudent view about planning for money that they might not get. It is not Q115 Meg Hillier: So you are rolling out best that they are unconfident about the outcome. We have practice already? had these kinds of models set before by Government, Louise Casey: Constantly. Our constant job— you set the performance reward grant and most authorities did not budget and get the money. Q116 Meg Hillier: And best value for money The second point was made about Liverpool, by practice as well? Colette, that even if they get the money, what they are Louise Casey: Yes, we did a costing of troubled saying is “We will reinvest that back into long-term families, nine months to 12 months ago, which was strengthening of our training”. This is a relatively our first foray into trying—everywhere I went, people Ev 20 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
would say to me “I have a family, Louise, that costs portion of those, of which Leeds, in terms of where this amount of money”, and they almost enjoyed we are in the 120,000, is at 2,190—or something like telling me how much they had cost. That approach that. It has done its own analysis and, as Jim said, it does not work when you work in jobs like mine, it was slightly ahead of that. It might have more local has to be significantly more rigorous than that. So we criteria that it adopts. It was saying that it thinks 3,000 actually did a report, very much leaning on some local families in Leeds might need or benefit from this type authorities to help us, that worked out how you could of approach. I am fine with that. Part of the benefit of start looking at the cost of troubled families. About a the programme is that they need to deliver a year later, what is really interesting is that we are now commitment for each £4,000 we hand out—of course putting together this thing called a cost calculator. they must—but if they can restructure their services The bottom line is that three local authorities that have to be significantly more effective for a wider cohort gone into this with us in a lot of detail know the costs. of families, great. They are not daft, these local Manchester knows that for every one of their troubled authorities. families, it has a net saving of £35,000 a year. Places such as Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle are Leicestershire county council, has a net saving of using the programme and using the small amount of £27,500 a year and the London borough of money that we are giving them, which, as Bob says, Wandsworth, which has also done this, has a net is a bit of a drop in the ocean, and using it to invest saving of £29,000 per year per family. That is a in services in a different way. For example, the local cautious estimate—in fact, it is not an estimate; it has criteria is heavily used for things such as edge of been done thoroughly by partners and analysts, and care—kids at risk of care, kids on child protection the Treasury is happy with what we are doing on the plans. Every time we properly solve what is cost calculator. happening in a family, which means that a child does The NAO Report is absolutely right to say—I will not not have to go into foster care, you are saving even look at Amyas because he is probably thinking £40,000. There are lots of reasons and lots of things that I am overstepping the mark—that we do not have they can do with the programme that help them more a fiscal analysis and that we have one coming through generally. the evaluation, but those authorities are doing this Your next thing of course is— because these families cost a huge amount of money and they do not want to leave them in poverty with Q118 Nick Smith: You want to scale it up. the disadvantages that has. Louise Casey: We want to scale it up. Sir Bob Kerslake: In terms of shared lessons across government, there are three really important ones: one Q119 Nick Smith: You want to expand it by six about shared endeavour between central and local; one times what Leeds needs scaling up by. about focus on outcomes through the payment by Louise Casey: And part of that is the recognition that results; and thirdly, encouraging local partnership. We there is no shortage of families in the country that are specifically drawing from the lessons of troubled might benefit from a different approach. They may families to see how they could apply to the better care have slightly fewer problems than the group we are fund model. currently working with. I am keen, as we move into Chair: We have a lot of people with questions, so the next phase, to look at families with slightly keep it tight guys. younger children so we can get to families slightly earlier. The nature of the programme, as we put it in Q117 Nick Smith: First of all, like others, I am at the moment, is to look at school attendance and pleased that you are sharing data. It is great that you youth crime. That naturally takes me to a slightly Thishave joint is working. an Louise,embargoed you talked about having advanceolder group of children. copy. They won’t have any trouble, sometimes to work between 10 and 30 agencies. It is I don’t think, in identifying families in places like great that that is happening. I am convincedfor embargo that you Leeds to populate details the next programme. Remember willNot save a shed to load be of money published and a lot of grief in a inthat £400,000 any commitment form goes over the lifetime of lot of communities around the country. I also think the next one. It is not just all next year. We will only that you have a fantastic ambition on turning around do a portion in 2015–16. It is a three-year period. people’s lives,before and I think all embargo power to your elbow. time. See attached Press Lots of big numbers have been bandied around Q120 Nick Smith: It is three times what you are though, and I am just a bit unsure about some of them. planning to do for this Parliament. You have talked aboutnotice working with 90,000 families Louise Casey: But it is the right thing to do, isn’t it? now and 120,000 by 2015, and then talked about By then we will have turned round families. We know working with another 400,000 between 2015 and how to structurally do some of this reform. People 2020. It is ambitious, but it is really, really ambitious. need to do it because they’ve got to save money. We When Mr Hopkinson was talking about what was have to save money and we have to stop these families going on in Leeds earlier, he said, “I am working with ending up in the enormous difficulties where there is 2,000 families, but there’s only another 1,000 to work a young offender doing five or six offences in six with.” There seems to be a disconnect between what months, police calls-outs up to the eyeballs and people he was saying was happening—the prevalence in using A&E because they don’t have a clue how to use Leeds—and what you are saying the big picture is Calpol. We cannot carry on like that and this nationally. Give me a bit more comfort about that. programme gives it a real edge in terms of making Louise Casey: Of course. Let me try. We start with people get on with the job in quite a robust way. It is 120,000 families and agree with local authorities their quite a tough programme. I think that is what you are Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 21
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
saying to me and I think it is extraordinarily menace, induce, do good practice, write things called ambitious, but if we are determined about it I think “Working with Troubled Families” and so on and so we will get it right. forth; but that is the factor that will change the intervention with the families. Q121 Nick Smith: Thanks for that. I support the Last week I was in Cowgate in Newcastle, which is need for it. It just seems very ambitious. I am an estate which is well known and has improved interested in why you have set it so high. Again, Mr immeasurably. I was there looking at a voluntary Hopkinson from Leeds talked about being successful sector project and what Newcastle troubled families with 35% of families. That felt excellent. And you people want to do. I think David Holmes from Family talked about turning round lives for the 120,000 Action was talking about the use of the voluntary families that you are working with. So what about the sector, so that once you have gone through the 65% who have not been successful so far? What will intensive programme—the short fat intervention, happen to the very, very troubled families? Will they which is what family intervention is—you are not just be part of the next cohort for the next Parliament? left on your own, but we actually think about how we Will you work through because there will still be a start to use the voluntary sector and the community to job of work for many of those families? sustain those changes. Louise Casey: There are two things here. In places Work is going to be a major issue. We have got places like Leeds we have a year and a half to work this like Manchester and others that see this programme through with local authorities. So, yes, Jim is at a 35% as part of their growth agenda, so the importance of projection at the moment. I am confident, as are they, maintaining the Jobcentre Plus co-ordinators in our that in Leeds that figure will go up. Remember the troubled families scheme just cannot be way we structured the programme meant we started underestimated. We need to keep that going and if asking them to get 35% in year 1, to start working possible expand it, because I know, like you know, the with 50% in the current year and 15% in the last year. best solution for all these families is to get them a job. So we are managing the risk, including in places such as Leeds, about how much money we hand out and Q123 Ian Swales: There are certain things we look how we encourage people to do it. It is ambitious. out for as potential issues, and one of them is payment This is extraordinarily ambitious. I was working under by results. The Report says at paragraph 16, “Early a previous Administration when we set up family indications also suggest that the incentives may not intervention projects and brought them down from work in the way that the Departments envisaged.” I Dundee into England. These are trying to get to am just wondering what you—particularly Louise— families that we know have intergenerational think about that. problems. But there is an edge to the programme with One could argue, when you listen to the evidence of the sense of getting them to school, reducing crime, if the chief executive of Family Action—I think you not getting them out of crime. We are more ambitious were here for that—and some of the quite small than any other Government programme on that. changes, like diet and things like that, that actually People want to do it. I feel very confident about it, to need to happen, that the payment by results methods be honest with you. may not be covering that kind of work and indeed may mean, as we see in other programmes, that people Q122 Chair: I am intervening because I just want to tend to work with the families where they are most ask you a question. Those things are good but how likely to succeed, and the most troubled families are you going to sustain them? How are you going to might actually fall behind. So how do you react to keep them working towards contributing to society that? Thisand not costingis an money embargoed to the public? They are okay. advanceLouise Casey: I think copy. the first thing to say is the They are not the ones who will make it sustainable. voluntary sector are independent and need to make up Getting into work, getting out of poverty:for those embargo sorts their own minds details about how they work with these ofNot things make to it sustainable be published and I am slightly iffy infamilies any and however form long they think it takes, and, about this. It is good to have key criteria but are they quite rightly, stand up for what their organisation ones that will give you sustainability for the believes is the right way of working for them. The programme?before embargo time.Government See and local attached authorities have to make Press sure Louise Casey: It is one of the areas that I am that they change the way these families, basically, concerned about and very much turning my attention absorb resources; and at the same time there are quite to at the moment.notice I know through the research of the a lot of us that feel quite strongly about making sure NatCen on family intervention of the five years from these families improve their lives, so their kids grow 2005 onwards that the sort of sustainability is up safer, happier and— incredibly impressive. Maintaining kids in education 14 months after family intervention has gone is Q124 Ian Swales: Sorry to interrupt. I totally support something like 89%. It is high already. Family the programme. I am not being critical of the functioning is key if we are going to get them to programme. What I am trying to say is: payment by Robert’s Jobcentre people. Something like 84% are results—is there a risk that it has any perverse assessed to be high family functioning 14 months incentives; for example, not working with the worst afterwards. families because you are less likely to get the results? The risk for me as a programme manager on this is Louise Casey: Honest to God, I think it is the that I cannot force every local authority to do family opposite; actually we have factors that include the intervention the way I want them to do it. I can charm, local discretion one, which is about high cost. We Ev 22 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
know, because it is in the NAO Report, that local is informing the design? Will you do anything authorities are using that fourth criterion for things differently if you are working with 400,000 different like—75% of local authorities are using one of the families, and a different set of services? Have you care factors as their local criteria. Of course they are thought about how you might change the payment by doing that because, like all of us do in the public results mechanism? sector, they give a damn about the children in those Louise Casey: It is too soon for us to make any public families; but, boy oh boy, they need to reduce their pronouncements on that. I include speaking at this care costs. So this is a programme of the head and the Committee as a public pronouncement. We have just heart, I think; and I think that is why it is such a consulted with all 152 local authority troubled family powerful combination. co-ordinators, and we are going into a period of I also think we had to be very clear at the beginning talking to people, including from the voluntary sector. that we were not going to micro-manage. I do not The long and the short of it is that there is something think anybody would mind my saying this; at one incredibly, breathtakingly radical about not just having point we had 78 indicators from our colleagues in endless bits of work with families. For example, you Whitehall, two years ago, across each Department, all might meet a woman who has been referred to the deciding they wanted to stick whatever they thought freedom programme on domestic violence four times; was important into my PBR—or our PBR, forgive somebody has paid for that four times. You know that me Bob. it is a total waste of money because if it is a domestic We had to fight all of that off, to get something really violence course, she is not going to make it, and what straightforward, which is if we just got every kid in she needs is a different approach. We need to work this country to school from the age of four or five and with these people in ways that get us clean, kept them there safely all day, so they could learn straightforward outcomes. I would worry about something, we would change social policy overnight. anything that goes forward that ends up with some So we went for that one; and of course safety in the Whitehall tryst of endless factors and endless household. Crime is not a good thing for anybody, and complications. therefore we went for crime; and of course we went for a kind of absolute—if you get them in a job, you Q126 Ian Swales: I agree with that. Can I finish by can have the money. adding another point to do with the alignment of A woman I met not long ago suffered domestic benefits and costs? I met six recovering male violence, you know, a terrible case; getting her a job alcoholics in my constituency who themselves meant we had to solve everything that was happening calculated that they had cost the system over £1 in the household—and get her a wig, incidentally. million between them, and yet we were struggling to Some of the things these families are up against are get the kind of services they needed to move on. The incredibly practical; and the confidence from having real issue is that troubled families—the report the right dentures or wig is not about a social care estimates £9 billion, and I would not argue with that— assessment that takes 31 days. It is about hearing her cost the system a fortune. It pops out in all different say, “I can’t leave the house.” areas. We are spending money out of some budgets Sir Bob Kerslake: Can I just make two points on this and the benefits are in others. I think we all agree that issue, because it is a really crucial point. We spent a this is something of a no-brainer, in terms of “let’s do lot of time thinking about the design of payment by it”, but are you satisfied that the transmission results. What persuaded me was that first, it needed to mechanisms for paying for it align sufficiently with be kept simple and secondly, we should not the benefits, so that we can push this as hard as we overestimate the sums and the motivation. The can, or are you seeing some breaks in the system or Thismotivation is for an local authoritiesembargoed is vastly outweighed advanceissues that say this copy. is undermining our ability to do by the impact on their other costs. It is simply not in this? their interests to game the system. for embargoLouise Casey: detailsI do not think we have anything that is Not to be published inabout aany break in theform system. I think we need to look Q125 Ian Swales: Except that you have private carefully at how we want to structure a future providers in some parts of this area. You have other programme, which, as your colleague Nick said, is providers.before This is what weembargo have seen in other time.huge. We See have gone attached from 120,000 to 400,000Press Departments. Overall, nobody is going to game the families. We need to think very carefully about the system, but my question was really about bringing in learning from the current programme, and the a provider and givingnotice them a particular target to meet. feedback we have had from local authorities and Not surprisingly, we find that those organisations drive others, when it comes to how we structure a new one. to try to meet the target. Sometimes you find perverse Even in this programme—it will be the same in the incentives—on doctors’ out-of-hours services, for full one—we are not meeting the full cost of the example. intervention with these families from this budget. Sir Bob Kerslake: That is a wider point about Some of that is borne by us and some by people payment by results. The point about the troubled locally. We have already established a programme, families initiative is that local authorities identify the and I think it would be same for the others, where families who need to be worked with. That is the people are beginning to see that you have to reduce key point. the resources. Tom McDonald: As the troubled families programme Can I, in fairness, pick up on the question that Meg evolves, what have you learnt about the use of asked? There are lessons in the way that Bob talked payment by results in this part of the programme that about how you might look at other high-cost groups Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 23
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
and work with them differently. I used to do the To what do you attribute the seemingly exceedingly homelessness job; it is obvious that other high-cost poor performance of Reed in Partnership in the east groups would benefit from a different approach. I have of England, in terms of attachments and claims for to say, having been around for such a long time, that outcomes? In that period, it is very low. In the case of we have to do something about children growing up figure 9 on page 33, it is 7% of the indicative target in these households; I often feel that they are the and 20% of the actual sustained job outcome. Is there victims in this debate. I am not prepared to say, “I tell a particular problem with the east of England or Reed you what, I’ll water down my programme to deal with in Partnership? lots of things and walk away from potentially Robert Devereux: There are two answers to that. Part hundreds of thousands of children”, because in six or of what you are seeing in figure 9 for all the providers 12 months, or sometimes shorter, we can change what is the low extent of referrals from local authorities to is happening in those households to the degree that them, so those are not self-generated numbers. The they do not have to end up in care or in a young Chair asked me earlier whether we had found ways offenders institution. That is how powerful this for other people to be referred, other than local programme can be. authorities, which we have done. The 7% and the variation there is largely to do with what has been Q127 Ian Swales: Just to finish my point, you talked provided to them, rather than what their action is. You earlier about the cost calculator. Policy makers who then have to say, “If they have had so few people want to support this programme will need evidence— coming in, what would you have expected to see on for example, fewer people in prison—and we can the outcome measure?”, since, again, absolute work out what the benefit of that is. I asked the numbers are being quoted here. The truth is— previous witnesses about the extent to which they are measuring the benefits of it. Are you geared up for the Q129 Chair: Sorry; 7% of what? Actual against policy makers to be given a completely “sign here” target? kind of proposition, because the benefits are so clear Mr Jackson: Yes. and are based on reality—not just assertions or Chair: Yes, I’ve got it. Go on. ideas—as a result of the fact that we are tracking what Robert Devereux: It is against an interpolation that is happening more? the NAO has done. It is a low number, but there is Louise Casey: We have let a huge, in my view, no pretending that there isn’t variation between the evaluation contract to a consortium called Icarus. providers, which are, in turn, producing different sorts Within that, there will be a cost-benefit analysis done of conversations with my colleagues about what they by—I can’t remember who they are, but they are can do to improve on that, where they can learn and terribly good at their job. There are other people, but what they must do with better marketing and so on. we have got the best. We have MORI doing some You all have experience of different providers in that stuff and whatever-they-are called doing the finances. regard. You have chosen Reed, which is struggling in I think you are absolutely right. I am nervous about some areas. The first page is about referrals and the things like this, so I talk about what I think the second is about the extent to which, with low referrals, programme is about, which is the children and the you end up with low results in the short term. families, but I am also very hard-headed about the fact that the programme has to prove itself. It has to prove Q130 Mr Jackson: Are you going to try a remedial its worth, otherwise we need to find a different way strategy to tackle that in the east of England? to work with these families. We have to change the Obviously, that is my neck of the woods, and it is way these families are, and we have to change the concerning that it is not keeping up with even the Thisresources. is You an are absolutely embargoed right to go on to me advanceworst of the other regionscopy. where contracts have been about it. You are completely right about it, and I hope awarded. that the evaluation will show usfor whether embargo we are Robert Devereux: detailsWe are doing two different classes gettingNot it right, to and be if we published are not, where we can inof things. any First, weform are working with local authorities improve it. The thing to reassure the Committee about and providers to generate more referrals. The data, is that the evaluation goes far wider than the which were published a long time ago—I am not simplicity ofbefore the PBR, so it isembargo looking at a much wider time.introducing See anything new—madeattached it perfectly Press clear set of data. We are all pretty driven about the stuff that in the six months to September 2013, twice as around costs, because if we can save costs around many people were attached than in the 15 months up these families, wenotice might be able to use that money for to March 2013, so the pace at which we are beginning other families in different ways. We are all with you to fix this is increasing. The numbers are likely to go on wanting to find ways to save money. up further still in the future, and that is largely because of the secondments that send staff into local Q128 Mr Jackson: You are very taciturn this authorities. We are breaking down the lack of afternoon, Mr Devereux. I know it is difficult to break knowledge about and antipathy towards the providers into the Bob and Louise show, but I will give you by having our own people work with local authorities an opportunity. and deciding which individual is best sent to that Sir Bob Kerslake: I am happy to sit— provision, as opposed to being sent to the employment Mr Jackson: Yes, you can have a rest, you two. In or education provision. We are working on the fact, Sir Bob, I have not seen you so animated for referral bit. many a session—there is a spring in your step. I have Separately, we are asking—we are basing this on the a genuine question, Mr Devereux, on figures 9 and 10. current month—“Given the referrals you have had, Ev 24 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
where do we expect a good performer to be?” We are Louise Casey: Interestingly, they are connected. The challenging ourselves to get to 22%—we know we are first thing to say is that the cost calculator, or whatever not there. We are asking, “Where should you be? we call it, will be an immensely practical tool that What are other people like you managing to achieve, local authorities will be able to use now. We are given the number of referrals?” hoping we will be able to get that up shortly. Although I hesitate to refer back to the stuff I have published—I am trying to help you out—the cohort Q133 Chair: The benefit— information gives me some information about the rate Louise Casey: It will show that the benefit does not at which I should expect other people to get people all come to them, so it is important that local into work, so I can say to Reed, “Look, although authorities are able to work—it is a partnership thing, you’ve had fewer referrals, by now I would have not that I like that word, but it genuinely is. The police expected you to have achieved this, and you are not will able to see the cost of a domestic violence doing it. What are you going to do about it?” Both incident or a case across the criminal justice system. those things are happening now. We will be able to look at health and children’s Mr Jackson: Thank you for that very comprehensive services. answer. Ms Casey, you have a passionate interest in this issue and a very good command of the facts, and Q134 Mr Jackson: The figures are enormous, aren’t I want to understand this. Obviously, after the riots in they? If we help three families in Manchester, that is 2011, there was a strategic view in Government about £100,000, and for 30 families it is £1 million. the value for money that a troubled families Louise Casey: That is why I am anxious to get this programme would deliver across the whole country. cost calculator right. I am the one at the moment who You mentioned some figures for local authorities—I is saying that I want to see it for myself and make think Manchester, Wandsworth and Leicestershire sure it is easy for local authorities and their partners county council. Were those figures broken down at the time for each local authority, and if not, will they be to use, and that it will be robust enough. I spent the now? Our local authorities are going through the first six months with people showing me how much budget-making process now, and they are all saying money they thought they were spending on these that they are having to make difficult decisions. From families in some sort of competition. I am not DCLG’s point of view, is the troubled families interested in that. It has to be real, and we have to be programme a tool for letting them know the indicative able to show what I think we will show: that money figures? That is my first question. will go back to local government, or they will spend Secondly, I am interested in the mechanics of how less money—let me put it that way. There will be you get the balance between the carrot and the stick. savings for the police and on health, and therefore for Local authorities are under day-to-day pressure—they the Treasury. That is what we think it will show, but might have serious case reviews or a serious shortage we need to get it absolutely right. of qualified social workers. Where is the stick there? The cost calculator is definitely on its way, and it will Many directors of children’s services will say, “Look, be enormously helpful to everyone because it will put we’ve got a day-to-day firefighting priority, and this out there transparently for this particular group of is not as important, because it is a long-term families—you can apply it to other groups as well— investment.” Coming back to Mr Bacon’s point, how the sort of costs that are caught up and how, for the can central Government force them to do it in a first time, it is quite radical. We will be able to see the practical way that will deliver? At the moment, some way that works, in terms of public sector reform. of them are not delivering. The final part of my long question—forgive me, Q135 Meg Hillier: May I chip in on that? Will you ThisChairman—is: is an is it aboutembargoed political buy-in? Do too advancebe updating the values copy. on the calculator? If the court many senior councillors say, “Well,for these guys embargo are on system reformed details itself, it might be cheaper in future. theNot fringes of societyto be and, frankly, published they don’t vote for inLouise any Casey: When form people have better data, ideally us. It doesn’t really matter if we don’t do it, because they will work out their own costs. It is a tool to help they will always be with us”? Is there a sort of cultural them work out what their local costs are. For example, resistance tobefore taking the bull byembargo the horns? time.those in Greater See Manchester attached might be different Press from Chair: Before you answer, let me just say that for those in Hackney. Do you see what I mean? It is quite figure 7, where you see the attachments, I was told in sophisticated, which is partly why I obviously do not my brief that the worstnotice performers were Lincolnshire, know as much about it as I probably should, sitting Brent and Buckinghamshire, which is interesting here. It is too sophisticated for me, but when it is less because they are a mixed bunch, and the best sophisticated and I can understand it, we will be able performers were Herefordshire, Bury, and Bath and to put it out there, so that people can use it. North East Somerset. We are hoping that colleagues will be able to work out ways to save costs and make savings relevant to Q131 Mr Jackson: So it is not as if it is just urban their own area. It is not a national thing; it is real authorities in Lancashire. It is a mixture across locally. I think that will help them with the discussions England. they need to have about not walking away from the Louise Casey: Yes. table and saying, “Sorry, Mr Police Officer and Mrs Health Service, you need to be part of this discussion, Q132 Mr Jackson: That was a very long question in because I am saving you money, so I want your three parts. money now to help me carry on with this job.” Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 25
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
What is interesting about it is that it takes you into political side about trying to do this. Everyone the radical change in the way we work, and I do not believes, whether Labour Leeds, Conservative think children’s services can sit outside that debate Westminster or somewhere else run by the Liberal any longer. We know that. I was in a shire where they Democrats down in Devon or wherever, that this is told me about a family with four children in the the right thing to do. That has really helped us. We do household. One had already been removed and taken not have political infighting about this stuff locally into care, the next was on a child protection plan, the or nationally. next was called a child in need—there is a whole Sir Bob Kerslake: It is worth saying that the process around that—and the other had something difference in performance is not down necessarily to called “team around the child”, which seemed to be political leadership; it is down to where they started that he or she went to the school for an extra course. from. So some authorities had family intervention Each of those four children had their own social care programmes already— team in a different bit of the authority. Before I start on the endless other organisations and agencies Q137 Chair: To be honest, looking at the bottom of involved in the complications of those four children, the list, you would have thought Brent would have there was the mum, with no one working effectively been doing this for years. enough to change the way the mother was parenting, Mr Jackson: Given Brent’s history. and domestic violence was a huge issue. By working Sir Bob Kerslake: Potentially, yes, but it is not down with the mother over a period, we saw a step down, to type of authority, political control or anything. to use social services jargon, for the right reasons, Chair: Or Lincolnshire. such as safety in the household and more effective parenting. That is a good thing for the family, and it Q138 Mr Jackson: You might have misunderstood. is a bloody good thing for the taxpayer. I was not saying that some people for party political reasons set their face against the programme; I was Q136 Mr Jackson: Sorry to interrupt. In more saying that irrespective of party, the senior Peterborough we have been through the horrific leadership— process of a sexual grooming case, and I pay tribute to Sir Bob Kerslake: Is crucial. Cambridge constabulary and Peterborough children’s Mr Jackson: The senior cabinet members, including services, which were fantastic. On this occasion the leader and deputy leader—not the case in Leeds, Peterborough city council was very good. The point because the deputy leader is driving this—may think, is that in a sense its issue is, “Protect these children. “Well, it’s a great programme, but it’s not the top Look after these children”, but—I hate the expression, priority.” but it is the only one I can use—they do not have Sir Bob Kerslake: I appreciate your point. What I am the resources, or provision even, to think downstream saying is that sometimes political leadership is the about how you deal with the parenting. That is the reason, but sometimes it is where that authority is in challenge, isn’t it? terms of its data and programme. Louise Casey: It is, but remember what a great Mr Jackson: That is a useful point. Thank you. programme we are trying to run here. We give people in Peterborough children’s services the ability to use Q139 Austin Mitchell: I want to explore the the money that we are giving them to do precisely that evaluation service. I will tell you a little more—the type of work. Instead of assessing the hell out of a DWP first of all. The highest performing contractor family, because we are worried about statutory duties, achieved 74% of the target for attachments in the first we are able to have someone else work with the 21 months; the lowest performer was 7%. Can you Thisfamily tois change an them. embargoed advanceexplain these variations? copy. Why is it that Yorkshire and A case in the Wirral: a girl on domestic violence; Humberside, where my constituency is, gets a worse children being taken away becausefor she wasembargo not service than details the east midlands, which are pretty protectingNot them, to because be the blokepublished kept coming back; incontiguous, any and aform much worse service than the best she is about to have her children removed, because performer of all, which was Greater Manchester? she is not protecting them; and actually the family What causes the variations? interventionbefore worker worked embargo alongside statutory time.Robert Devereux: SeeAs Iattached was trying to explain Press to Mr children’s services, who were rightly concerned about Jackson earlier, the table you are looking at in figure the safety of the children. Yes, she was under statutory 9 is a table of the percentage of what we had hoped children’s servicesnotice looking at her; the family they would have attached for the programme that is intervention worker went in; man removed from actually attaching. This is a programme that is set up household permanently and properly; and the rest, as in the first instance for local authorities to refer people they say, is history. The reason that this programme to these providers. If you have been all the way round has such good traction with those in local government in the conversation so far, it is local authorities who is that they can see that there is a bigger prize for understand who these families are in the first instance, them. They know that they are going to have to look and you are getting rates of referrals from different at restructuring children’s services. authorities across the country. Figure 9 has more to The other thing that I wanted to say was that you have do with the referral mechanism than the performance made a very important point, which is one of the best mechanism. things about this programme: it has political buy-in As I tried to explain, in figure 10 you are getting into from all political parties. All 152 local authorities what the actual providers are managing to do with the signed up. I have had no bother whatever from any people that they have received. I was trying to tell you Ev 26 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
two stories. One is that we are trying to raise referrals in paragraph 3.4 that early on in the programme, when in the figure 9 sense. Secondly we are trying to use a local authorities in some areas were thinking of yardstick that says, “Here is the sort of performance referring, they did not have the confidence in the that you are getting across the piece, with good DWP-contracted providers in order to do so. performers in individual cohorts—that is what I would expect you, provider A, B and C, to be achieving Q145 Chair: All I will say is that all three of our now.” witnesses did not talk to the DWP. There is something wrong. Q140 Austin Mitchell: Look at the variations— Robert Devereux: Sorry—who didn’t talk to the Greater Manchester is so much more successful than DWP? anybody else, but everybody is below target. Does the fact that you have changed the targets from three Q146 Chair: Our three witnesses. When I asked measures of success to one and made it easier mean whether they were engaged with the DWP that you are going to reward failure? programme, they all said no, and it wasn’t a placed Robert Devereux: No, I don’t think that that is the question. case. Let us be careful. Each provider was required, Robert Devereux: But you have just observed that, as part of their bid, to work with local authorities to actually, Leeds is one of the places where I do have identify what sort of numbers of referrals they could referrals being made by the authority, so I wonder plausibly expect to receive, and on that basis they did whether the question that you asked and the answer their business case. What I am observing here is that you think you have heard are on the same point. they have not had the extent of referrals that they were Chair: I just said, “What’s your experience?”—I expecting. When that then turns up on a contract cannot remember exactly. where people have already invested in staff, salaries Louise Casey: I honestly think that at paragraph 3.4 and supply chains, we have taken one decision only, the NAO have nailed this. I think that it is a and that is simply to say that within the money that combination of factors: local authorities lacked we would otherwise have paid at the point at which confidence in the providers and limited the referrals, somebody had three progress measures, we have but they also knew that we were coming along and started to give people the ability to earn a third of that were wondering what was going to happen. Simply to for one or for two measures along the way. Many of say that local authorities did not refer to ESF and that them are now getting towards three anyway, so we is why it is a problem does not completely hold water. have affected the cash flow but we have not affected However, to say that it is down to ESF providers does the overall cost. not hold water either. The NAO nails it in those four bullet points in paragraph 3.4, to be honest. Q141 Austin Mitchell: How are the failures going to The learning, however, is that the join-up that Robert be improved if the hurdles have been lowered? has talked about this afternoon, with his brilliant Robert Devereux: As I have just tried to explain, I do decision alongside Ministers to get us Jobcentre Plus not believe that we have materially lowered the people and put them in troubled families teams, means hurdles. I have not changed the overall price of this that we have actually overcome the issues around this. thing; I have made it easier for them to get some cash I do think that the 51,000 markers, as Robert refers to with each progress point where previously I would them in DWP language, show that there is a join-up. have required them to get all three before they got The point at which they did the 51,000 markers— any. The alternative at this point would be that if you admittedly of individuals, not families—is the point at have a big reduction in referrals, many of these which we are working with 62,000 families. So it is providers’ cash flows are very stretched. They could not perfect and there is probably fault on everybody’s Thiseasily haveis financialan embargoed considerations. We made aadvanceside, but we are now copy. at a place where, as long as we conscious choice to find a sensiblefor reflection embargo of the can maintain details the momentum on the Jobcentre Plus reductionNot in referralsto be that keeps published the providers going injoin-up any with troubled form families in local government, we but is not actually giving away anything that I do not are in a good place, Mr Mitchell. think is appropriate. before embargo time.Q147 Austin See Mitchell: attachedMoving on to you, whyPress is Q142 Chair: We will come back to that, Austin. Mr the highest-performing local authority exceeding the Devereux, is your programme voluntary? number of attachments agreed by 177%, while the Robert Devereux:noticeYes. lowest-performing missed its target by 67%? Louise Casey: The first thing to say is that, in terms Q143 Chair: Do any of the providers give any of— incentive for people to join the programme? Austin Mitchell: Figure 7 shows that a lot of them Robert Devereux: In a financial sense? are below 100%. Louise Casey: At the end of March in the first year Q144 Chair: Or in kind. I have no idea; I am just of the programme, when local authorities had not been asking. operating the programme for a year, there were local Robert Devereux: Not that I am aware of. We have authorities that hadn’t started working with their full certainly not encouraged them to do that. number. I think the shortfall was 13% at that point. Tom McDonald: There is one other piece in the That’s right, isn’t it? By June, we had only 840 jigsaw that helps to explain levels of attachments, and families who should have been worked with but who perhaps the variations that we have seen. We set out weren’t being worked with. They were supposed to Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 27
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
get 35%, which is 41,000 families, and they didn’t crime is a difficult thing to do with families. I have quite make that figure by March, but they all caught made it sound easy this afternoon, but it is not; it is up by June. In the scheme of things, honest to God, I extremely difficult to do that with children with think that that is okay. As we have gone forward with exceedingly low attendance rates compared with the the scheme, as you can see with the October national average, which includes people who just take turnaround figures that are also in the NAO Report, two weeks to go skiing. We are dealing with families we are starting to narrow that gap. They say—I don’t who are well away from that, and changing them is know why you gave us this—that somehow we are very hard. The message from yourself and other overperforming on turning around. I think we are just colleagues is that we have to nail getting the cost where we should be, and I am quite happy with it. We calculator right so that people are able to start showing also don’t use the words “targets” and “attachment with hard evidence that there are savings to be made fees” with local authorities. that help people. Sir Bob Kerslake: Clearly, a better jobs market helps Q148 Austin Mitchell: What is the conversion rate the programme, but, frankly, many of those families from attachments to outcomes? have struggled to get into work in boom or recession. Louise Casey: We ask people to commence working The deep underlying issues are not to do with the with a family in the way I have talked about this wider economy, they are to do with the experiences afternoon, and over that time period they convert them of those families, particularly, as we heard earlier, into changing what is happening in the family. They experiences around domestic violence. might be a family who weren’t getting their kids to school, whose kids were excluded or whatever, whose Q150 Chris Heaton-Harris: First, to Louise Casey, kids were caught up in crime or one of the other issues thank you. I love you. You’re brilliant. Every of worklessness. We expect local authorities to make Department should have one of you. a claim, and they have done it to the tune of 22,000 Louise Casey: I don’t think Bob necessarily thinks by October, which is in the NAO Report. We use that every day. language such as “working with” and “turning Chris Heaton-Harris: I’m sure he does. families around” because, as Sir Bob has said, the up- Sir Bob Kerslake: Of course I do. front money we are putting into local authorities for this doesn’t really cover the full cost; it is an incentive Q151 Chris Heaton-Harris: It seems that you have and a driver. The money is important to local broken down a number of barriers in the short time authorities, because they need to collect every bit of that the programme has been running. What is your money they can get at the moment, but this is not a next big barrier—the next big issue that you need to normal PBR scheme. We are not fully funding break down? After that I have a couple of questions anybody to do anything; we are giving local for Mr Devereux. authorities some extra money so that they can Louise Casey: The biggest challenge that we face is restructure services and try to change things. It is not doing this to scale and getting the type of system like the other PBR schemes run by the rest of change that you need. I don’t want this to be a project Government. It is very different. that people just manage the numbers on—do you see Sir Bob Kerslake: Just to reinforce the point that I what I mean? It’s a bit like when we set up family made to Mr Jackson, authorities started from different intervention projects. Joe and I—he is sat behind places. Some are playing catch-up, and we should me—have worked together for a long time. We went recognise that. round the country and set up 53 family intervention projects. They were boutique projects that were ThisQ149 Austinis an Mitchell: embargoedThe programmes are finite advancebrilliant but they didn’t copy. change the mainstream. The and have an achievement date, or whatever it is. At learning for me is that we have to change the the same time, things are improving.for Crime embargo and mainstream. details We have to look at how we prevent unemploymentNot to are be falling published anyway, and the inpeople any from ending form up in a situation where they are Government are giving us a song and dance about badly behaved or are neglected when they arrive in getting growth up to 2%, which is staggering. There is school—how we stop them being excluded at 11 always thebefore possibility of continued embargo cuts, so I wonder time.because we haven’tSee dealt attached with the issue in the family.Press whether both programmes are going to be able to A cultural revolution is needed, around not just show sufficient success because it is very difficult to responding to your problems but looking at you and show sufficientnotice success and sufficient value to seeing what is happening completely, and how that continue, as I think they should. They are valuable then helps us go into public service transformation. programmes, but are they going to be able to That is my biggest challenge. What people normally demonstrate that value in the face of possible cuts do is start with the system, and start talking about later on? things like public service transformation. The beauty Louise Casey: I think that is where the responsibility in this programme is that it starts with what’s on us in the central team is to provide local colleagues happening in the families—why they cause the with the cost calculator tool, which will very problems they have and why they have the problems straightforwardly show the money into the families they have. We work back from that in how we then and the savings they make on those families. It is tackle the system. That is a much more difficult thing therefore value for money for them to continue to to do than saying, “I tell you what, change your data work in that way and to get what is needed. The sharing.” That is hard, but much harder is working simplicity of getting kids back to school and reducing out, as Mr Jackson said, how you can come at Ev 28 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
children’s services in a different way so that you are Q153 Chris Heaton-Harris: This shows what not just constantly reacting to an ever-increasing leadership, and a shock to leadership, can do. It is still demand. the same people delivering the same service with a That is the biggest challenge for the programme. Of tiny bit more money, but with a programme and a plan course, we have to maintain cross-party high of massive improvement. It has been eye-opening for credibility for a programme that must survive those of us who have been watching it from the regardless of what happens in politics, because we outside. have to maintain this for the children. We can’t lose Mr Devereux, the Jobcentre regional guy was Rob another generation of children because we don’t get Cooper. I forgot to say his surname. He is worthy of this right—we just can’t. Sorry, that’s probably not the note because he has really worked hard on bringing right thing to say to the PAC, but that is what I think. my one-stop shop together in Daventry. Because that is working so well, I am über-confident about some of the things you are saying about joint working going Q152 Chris Heaton-Harris: Just following on from forward. My question comes back to the European that slightly, in Northamptonshire, where I started, the social fund money. It is not necessarily about troubled children’s services were failed by Ofsted, and it was families, but I am not so sure that you can reassign in a very bad way. I raised it in the House because I money like that so easily. First, for every five quid we was getting loads of casework that I really should not put in, we get two quid out, so we are getting less have been getting from parents who had issues with value from it straight away because it has gone it. As it’s at a low baseline, is that actually quite a through that process. Secondly, are you absolutely good place to start? They are desperate to get it sure that you can reassign money that easily from right—they have changed the whole management the ESF? system around how they work and they are increasing Robert Devereux: Don’t make it sound as if, having the amount of money they put in. Are they going to explained where the money has gone, I simply woke be in a better position, we hope, going forward? up one morning and switched it around. We have gone Louise Casey: Northamptonshire is one of those areas very cautiously in everything to do with the European that was on my worry list—that is no surprise between social fund, because as you probably know, at the end the chief executive and myself—partly because you of the day whether these funds have been well applied have to hold your nerve when an area like that is is not a matter for Amyas or for me; it is a matter for saying, “You know what, Louise? We may not get you their auditors, and they can take the entire money back your numbers in July or October, because we want to again. I can assure you that we are seriously risk do a wholesale reform in a different way.” You have averse in making decisions about ESF funding that we to trust them on it. Now they are projecting a much do not think will stand up. We have gone through it stronger position in terms of their numbers, as we are and we believe that these are all things that we are now in the new year. You have to trust that, don’t capable of doing. If you think about what I read out— you? You have to respect the chief executive and people from the Work programme, people who are respect what the children’s services people are saying, NEET and so on—we are in the same sort of territory. and hold your nerve. We are trying to promote employability. At the time, their turned-round position in October was really poor. That is the bottom line. They know I Q154 Chris Heaton-Harris: But did you talk to think that, and they have spent time reassuring both them about it? I am very wary about this, because in myself and my team. What they do is that people a different field we had to pay back huge chunks— locally take us through what is going on. We have a hundreds of millions of pounds—of regional funding huge amount of information and understanding about because we sprayed money around after BSE, I think, This is an embargoed advanceor something like that. copy. I am really wary of the process. where they are—for example, whether they have Did you engage with the European Commission? Ofsted in. All sorts of things happen in local for embargoRobert Devereux: detailsAs I understand it, we have done authorities.Not There to are be serious published case reviews, as Stewart in any form that. said—things go on. As long as we know what is going Chair: You had better write and confirm that to us. on, and as long as we understand and trust the before embargo time.Chris Heaton-Harris: See attachedAnd a bit about the process Press as restructuring they are doing—and that is what well, if that is at all possible. Northamptonshire is doing—I am happy. As long as Robert Devereux: Sure. at some pointnotice I know that the kids in Northamptonshire aren’t going to stay in families that Q155 Mr Bacon: Just two questions, one for Louise we are leaving dysfunctional because we are all sitting Casey and one for Sir Bob. You mentioned that around in partnership meetings or committee Northampton was on your worry list. Has Norfolk meetings, that’s fine. been on your worry list? It was the ninth-highest Time waits for no man. Every year that we are all recipient when it started. The director of children’s restructuring or thinking about things, a child’s life is services has gone, and we now have an interim one— not improving. There is always going to be a tension a very good one, I might add, whom I have met with somebody like me about pushing on with change. several times—who is beginning to make a difference I respect how Northamptonshire have gone about through leadership in the way that Chris was doing it, I was very reassured by the chief executive describing. We have an interim chief executive, we and I am looking at strong numbers in terms of their have an interim finance director and we have interim turned-around figures now in February and March. transportation and planning. When the scheme was Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 29
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
launched, the local paper referred to Norfolk as being worryingly encouraging signs that people are starting the ninth-highest recipient, which also meant, as the to talk to each other in the way one would hope. The paper pointed out, that it had the ninth-biggest number reason it is not getting any problems with political of troubled families. buy-in is that people have been looking for this sort Louise Casey: Norfolk remains on my worry list, and of thing for decades. Finally, the different parts of it will stay there until it improves. It is going through Government appear to be talking to each other. You all those changes, etcetera etcetera, but I am worried mentioned that there are six Departments involved about Norfolk and I am not going to sit here and say here. My question is: in a hit list where would be the it is all great—it isn’t. We get reassurances, but they other top areas where you think Government could know that I am coming to see them. They know why learn from this type of approach and do more joined- I am coming to see them and they know that I will up Government? help them try to work out what they can do to make Sir Bob Kerslake: There’s an opportunity. Let me give sure that they are able to use this programme to the you two that I think are very important. The first is best of their ability. To say that I am not concerned what we are doing around health and care. Many of about them would be to lie to you. the same issues occur about multiple agencies not getting to the heart of the issue for an individual. I Q156 Mr Bacon: I have had cases in my think we can learn a lot in what we are doing through constituency surgery that I perhaps ought not to have what we call the better care fund. That fund has very had. I might add, just for the record, that the new similar principles that are emerging: potentially attack interim director for children’s services seems to regard initial sums that go to local authorities, payment by information from MPs’ surgery cases as helpful. results and so on. A lot of learning about how we take Louise Casey: Sheila Lock? forward the better care fund is one example. Mr Bacon: Yes. The second is what we are doing in relation to local Louise Casey: She seems like a breath of fresh air, I growth. Through the creation of the new single local must say. growth fund we now have—though not without birth pains—a single local growth team that straddles CLG, Q157 Mr Bacon: She is a breath of fresh air. She BIS and the Cabinet Office cities team. Those are two seems to regard information from surgery cases as a examples where we have learned a lot from troubled helpful indication of what is really going on on the families. Crucially, what we have learned is just how ground, which I can tell you is a huge breath of fresh much more you can achieve if you force the issues of air. I am interested to know that that is on your radar. integration and joining up. It is probable that we should talk offline and that you might want to co-operate further with Norfolk MPs Q160 Chair: I have two points on that. One is that generally, because we are all very concerned about the the interesting thing about this programme is that it is position at the county. delivered locally, leaving quite a lot of discretion, but Louise Casey: I think, just to reassure you, that apart it is driven centrally. from the fact she seems like a breath of fresh air and Sir Bob Kerslake: That is right. I have some faith that we will make some progress, once you get the right leader you can move mountains Q161 Chair: Given how often you sit in front of us pretty quickly. That is what is so interesting about this and say it is all local with local discretion, it needs a programme. I have had other areas that I have worried strong drive from the centre, accepting that things will about, and it is about making them realise that it is a be different in Norfolk and Barking. top priority for them because it can help them in a Sir Bob Kerslake: The same would be true of the wider way, trying to remind them why we do this— better care fund and the health and care integration. Thisbecause is none ofan us wantsembargoed kids growing up in these advance copy. families—or persuading themfor on the embargo finance Q162 Chair: detailsYou might save a lot of pressure, where argument.Not If youto get be a good published leader—and it has to be inyou have any actually form just shoved it out. the chief executive or someone equally senior—things Sir Bob Kerslake: We have used a phrase and people can move really quickly. Once we have unlocked the have different reactions to it: muscular localism. door in Norfolk—andbefore I think embargo Sheila Lock might be time. See attached Press our way to do that—we will move quite quickly. Q163 Chair: Muscular localism is quite nice. It would be interesting to reflect on that. We might do Q158 Mr Bacon:noticeThe appropriately named Sheila that as a Committee. The final thing is that you Lock. obviously have support for the endeavour and purpose Louise Casey: She can unlock. of this, but where we are still nervous as a value-for- money Committee is how you will measure success. I Q159 Mr Bacon: Thank you, that is quite reassuring. hear that you are doing the evaluation. I wonder Sir Bob, the first recommendation in the NAO Report, whether you could write to us straight after this paragraph 17, is, “The programmes to help families Committee, or when you could, setting how quite have demonstrated again the need for policy making, clearly how you think you will measure success. We programme design and implementation to be more can then hold you to account in relation to that. joined-up.” Sir Bob Kerslake: We are happy to do that. There is That sentence could apply to any area of Government. a combination of outputs—measuring success around Although the Report says it is early days and too soon the 120 turned around—and outcomes, and the fully to judge value for money, there are some almost evaluation will help a lot with that. Ev 30 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Q164 Chair: When is the evaluation due? to make me believe that we will get over the line on Louise Casey: We will probably get our first set of the first. information towards the end of this financial year and the beginning of the next. That will give us a lot of Q167 Mr Bacon: You can always merge a court with information about who the families are and their range a Jobcentre, then people could go straight from the and set of problems. The thing I take from this magistrate into a job. afternoon is that we need to speed up slightly the work Louise Casey: Somewhere like Leeds is absolutely on the costs aspects. clear that one reason for doing this programme is to reduce the number of children for whom it currently Q165 Chair: We need an outcomes framework to test spends £15,000 a week in residential care. Even in the value for money. places like Birmingham, for all its difficulties, the Sir Bob Kerslake: We’ll send you a note. leadership does not want the level of children being excluded at the moment into pupil referral units. I Q166 Chair: Robert, did you want to say something accept that we have to prove to you how we measure about that? that, and how we get that right. We are in the business Robert Devereux: I would add, just to get your of high numbers of families, very high expectations expectations straight, there must be two quite different and a cultural radical revolution in the way we think sorts of costs that this programme will save. There are about spend and how we go about dealing with these marginal costs. If I don’t need as many social workers families. that makes a saving. Then I have the entire cost of the court estate. In due course, if there are fewer people Q168 Ian Swales: We do not necessarily need going through it, one day I might close a court. Those capital-type issues like you are speaking about, but are radically different sorts of numbers with really the unit costs of going through a court or into prison, different time horizons. You should expect us to be that kind of thing. much better at the first because that is the immediately Sir Bob Kerslake: We will do the best analysis we cashable saving. You should check that we are not can. I would say that most local authorities recognise adding in the second one as well because, good as it that this form of reform is the way they are going to is, it has a different time horizon. You have only got manage budgets and be sustainable in the longer term. to see some of the interventions that we are making It is the only game in town. Chair: Good. Thank you very much indeed.
Written evidence from Family Action
Thank you for your email of 3rd February, see below for my response covering both Questions 64 and 65 below in relation to the wearing by police of head cameras and prosecution.
The feedback from some of our services who work with victims of domestic violence is that they were not aware of the use of head cameras in relation to their clients, but a couple are aware of an increase in the use of head or body cameras by the police when attending critical incidents. Regarding the issue of prosecution, our experience is that some of the victims of domestic violence that we work with find the possible consequences of pursing prosecution to be a frightening barrier. David Holmes CBE ThisChief Executive is an embargoed advance copy. 6 FebruaryNot 2014 to be publishedfor embargo in any details form beforeWritten evidence embargo from the Department time. for Communities See and Local attached Government Press I am writing to follow up on points raised with Sir Bob and me, when we appeared before your committee last month. I wantednotice first though, to thank you and other committee members for a very helpful discussion— it was both challenging and constructive. We completely agree that we need to establish very clearly the value for money provided by this programme. That was one of the reasons that very early in the life of the Troubled Families Programme, we decided to commission a three-year national evaluation.
The evaluation will demonstrate not just how the programme has changed the lives of families and the services around them, but how value for money has been achieved. A part of that, a ground breaking cost calculator is being developed, which will be a tool to help local authorities and their partners establish the costs and benefits of this Programme, to show how they are reducing their reactive spend on these families by working with them in a different way and to whom the cost savings accrue.
You asked me at the meeting to send you some details about how the evaluation of the Programme will measure success and I attach a note on that at Annex A. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 31
I will follow up with committee members separately on the queries that were raised about the operation of the Troubled Families Programme in their own constituencies. Louise Casey 10 February 2014
Annex A THE TROUBLED FAMILIES PROGRAMME: MEASURING SUCCESS Background The Government is working with 152 upper-tier local authorities and their partners to help turn around the lives of 120,000 troubled families in England by 2015. Local authorities are incentivised through a payment by results scheme, which allows them to claim up to £4,000 per family they have turned around based on: — Getting children back in to school. — Reducing youth crime and anti-social behaviour. — Getting adults in to continuous employment. The Department for Communities and Local Government collects information on how many families for which local authorities have claimed “results “ payments. However, the performance data gathered for the payment by results scheme is only one aspect of measuring the success of the Programme. We are also determining its effectiveness through a three year national evaluation which will demonstrate impact and measure value for money.
Evaluation The National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme is being carried out by a consortium led by Ecorys UK, in partnership with Ipsos MORI, Bryson Purdon Social Research; the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; the Thomas Coram Research Unit (TCRU) at the Institute for Education, and Clarissa White Research. The evaluation includes a range of activities to draw together a fuller analysis of the programme’s impact. These methods include: — A quantitative survey of 1,000 families led by Ipsos MORI, which will compare families who have been through the Programme with those who have not yet been through it. It includes questions on health, mental health, drugs, alcohol, debt and family relationships as well as their experience of the Troubled Families Programme. — Analysis of local authority data on at least 10% of the families who enter the Troubled Families Programme, looking at their profile information, the problems they start with and how those problems are reduced during the programme. — In-depth work in at least 20 case study areas, to understand how they have developed and delivered the Programme locally and how the programme has incentivised and driven public service transformation. — Qualitative interviews with at least 20 families during and after they have received support, looking This isin depthan at howembargoed their lives have changed andadvance their experience of publiccopy. services. — A national cost benefit analysisfor of embargo the Programme, including details a costs savings calculator available to Notall localto authorities be published to estimate savings in their in own area.any form The evaluation is due to run until Autumn 2015. Following a scoping and feasibility phase, the main qualitativebefore and quantitative fieldworkembargo is currently underway. time. See attached Press
noticeWritten evidence from Leeds City Council Following my evidence at to the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday 29 January 2014, I am providing a written response to 3 questions. — Q27 Nick Smith: Can I come back on my second question? I really would like to see that data. I want to know what success you have in getting youngsters into school. Due to the nature of the criteria that makes up a Troubled Family, not all children in all the families we work with will necessarily have educational issues. For example in a family with three children, two children may attend school regularly and one child may be persistently absent. However in order to claim payment by results and consider families “turned around” We must satisfy ourselves that all children in the families we work with have achieved fewer than 15% unauthorised absences. Ev 32 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
The best way I can assist the Committee is by providing a snapshot utilising the most recent available data. In this snapshot there were a total of 276 children who met this criteria by having unauthorised absence which has now dropped below 15%. These children had an average unauthorised attendance rate of 3.9% over the last academic year. The same 276 children in the academic term immediately preceding this had an average unauthorised attendance rate of 7%. I hope this assists to give the committee a better understanding of progress made by the troubled families programme in reducing absence and getting children to return to school. — Q29 Chair: I want to move us on, but can I quickly ask what proportion of your families have children on the at-risk register? To assist the Committee we have taken, as an indicative snapshot, our “Year 2” cohort of 800 troubled families. Of these 800 families, 24 families have been identified as having a child subject to a child protection plan in this cohort and this equates to 3% of the families we are working with. Of these 800 families, 92 families have been identified as having a child in need this equates to 12% of families we are working with. — Q31 Chair: What proportion of your families would you classify as having children in poverty? We do not readily hold data on family incomes so are not able to categorically state what proportion of families that we are working with have children in poverty. Our analysis across our Year 1 and Year 2 cohorts demonstrate that 89% of all families that we have worked with were in receipt of work related benefits at the start of our intervention. Additionally the largest numbers of families that we work with live in the most deprived wards of Leeds. Jim Hopkinson Head of Targeted Services 11 February 2014
Written evidence from Liverpool City Council
The City Council maintains a General Reserve (Working Balance) to provide resilience against financial uncertainty, this is of particular importance in the current climate of significantly reduced funding levels and the reforms introduced to Local Government finance that have seen a transfer of risk from central government to local government. In the event that reserves are used to support the Council’s budget position, they will only be able to be used on a one off basis and can not provide a permanent budget solution to the financial challenge faced as the reserve is finite. The budgeted level of the General Reserve is £24.8 million for 2013–14 which represents approximately 5% of the City Council’s 2013–14 net revenue budget. The City Council will maintain Working Balance of £24.8 million for the years 2014–15 and 2015–16 and then will reduce them to £17.6 million in 2016–17 (4.5% of net budget) as they are used to support the budget position in that year. If the City Council were to spend its general reserves to fund general fund services the money would run out in just over two2 weeks.
ThisIn addition is thean City Councilembargoed has earmarked reserves advance as set out in Table 1; acopy. brief description of each category of earmarked reserve is set out below:for embargo details Not— The to City Councilbe ispublished obliged to maintain a number in ofany Legally Restrictedform Reserves ; these are sums of money that the City Council is required to set aside for legally defined purposes (eg the Dedicated Schools Grant is ring-fenced and can only be used as defined in the Schools Finance (England) Regulations).before embargo time. See attached Press — The City Council has reserves in relation to its two PFI schemes. The reserves have been established to enablenotice the amount of unspent PFI grant received in the year to be carried forward to be spent in future years. — The City Council maintains a corporate risk register. To manage the financial implication of these risks the Council has prudently established a number of earmarked Risk Reserves to mitigate the anticipated impact on the budget and future years service delivery. The risk reserves include amounts set aside to meet any grant claw back; as it has received in excess of £300 million of external investment over a number of years from European and National Government. The majority of this external funding is subject to 20 year claw back provisions from date of project completions. Therefore in the event of assets being sold, used for alternative purposes not covered by grant or moving towards more commercial uses a proportion of this funding may be recovered from these awarding bodies. Other risk reserves include self insurance reserves held for schools (£5.9 million), a restructure fund (£12.5 million), legal claims (£10.5 million) including tripping claims, and provision for large scale emergencies (£3 million) including the Belwin Scheme. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 33
— Specific Scheme Reserves have been established to enable the City Council to prudently manage its finances and relate mainly to expenditure and funding commitments that have been re-phased from 2012–13 into 2013–14 and future years. Some projects do not neatly fit into financial years and funding is required to be transferred from one year to another to complete projects and deliver service outcomes. In recent years there have been significant joint contributions set aside (currently £15 million for projects in 2014–15 and future years)) between the City Council and the Health sector to fund joint funded projects and initiatives. This is considered best practice by the Government which has been recognized through the establishment of the Better Care Fund. — The Grants Reserve is required to be held due to a change in accounting treatment required by the introduction of IFRS. The grants reserve represents revenue grant income that has been received with no “condition” (ie does not have to be repaid to the “grantor”) but where the related expenditure has not yet been incurred and includes grants such as the Troubled Families Grant £2 million) where the City Council acts as the accountable body. — The Schools Balances are not available for the City Council’s general use and are not included. The table below forecasts how the current earmarked reserves will be drawn down and utilised to support the budget position over the three year budget period 2014–15 to 2016–17. It is forecast that the current level of earmarked reserves will be £37.0 million by 2016–17 compared to £111.8 million in 2012–13 a reduction of £74.8 million.
Table 1 CURRENT EARMARKED RESERVES—ESTIMATED BALANCE AT THE YEAR END %age of net 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 spend £m £m £m £m £m % Legally Restricted 2.558 2.149 1.941 1.728 1.504 0.38 PFI Reserves 4.694 3.196 3.049 4.245 4.076 1.74 Risks 65.005 63.373 67.130 49.623 26.560 2.18 Specific Schemes 36.545 23.096 9.628 4.891 4.893 1.25 Grants 2.978 6.759 1.966 0 0 0 Total Reserves 111.780 98.573 83.714 60.487 37,033
The £37.0 million remaining as at the 31st March 2017 primarily relates to specific risk reserves for grant claw back, insurance and specific legal claims were it is not possible with certainty to predict in what year these reserves will be utilised and so are held on the balance sheet until required. An analysis of the forecast £37.0 million earmarked reserves as at 31st March 2017 is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 FORECAST EARMARKED RESERVES AS AT 31ST MARCH 2017 £m Legally Restricted Reserves 1.504 PFI Reserves 4.076 This is an embargoedSchools Self Insurance Reserveadvance 5.880 copy. Self Insurance Property and Motor 2.023 Grantfor Clawback embargo details 10.379 Not to be publishedLegal Claims in any form 6.003 Emergency Reserve (including Belwin) 3.071 Pension Reserve 769 before embargoWinter Maintenance Reserve time. See 491 attached Press Dilapidations 1.400 noticeOther Risk Reserves 1.437 TOTAL 37.033
Colette O’Brien 11 February 2014
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 04/2014 037603 19585 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
PEFC/16-33-622 Distribution by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
Online www.tsoshop.co.uk
Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 House of Commons
The Houses of Parliament Shop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Committee of Public Accounts Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890 General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk Programmes to help TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 families facing multiple This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/ challenges ISBN 978 0 215 07060 9
Fifty-first Report of Session 2013–14
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
HC 668 37603_HC668_Cover / sig1 plateA
37603 HC 668 Cover.indd 1 31/03/2014 21:16 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 37603_HC668_Cover / sig1 plateB
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts
Programmes to help families facing multiple challenges
Fifty-first Report of Session 2013–14
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 24 March 2014 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
HC 668 Published on 4 April 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £12.00
Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine ‘‘the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit’’ (Standing Order No 148).
Current membership Rt Hon Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking) (Chair) Mr Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk) Stephen Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Guto Bebb (Conservative, Aberconwy) Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative, Thurrock) Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry) Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch) Mr Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough) Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough) Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby) Nicky Morgan (Conservative, Loughborough) Nick Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent) Ian Swales (Liberal Democrats, Redcar) Justin Tomlinson (Conservative, North Swindon)
Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pac. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee is Sarah Petit (Clerk), Claire Cozens (Committee Specialist), James McQuade (Senior Committee Assistant), Ian Blair and Jacqui Cooksey (Committee Assistants), Sue Alexander (Committee Support Assistant) and Janet Coull Trisic (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk, Committee of Public Accounts, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone Thisnumber isfor general an enquiriesembargoed is 020 7219 5708; the advance Committee’s email addresscopy. is [email protected] Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form
before embargo time. See attached Press notice
1
Contents
Report Page
Summary 3
Conclusions and recommendations 5
1 The programmes’ design and implementation 9
2 Securing value for money from the programmes 11
Formal Minutes 14
Witnesses 15
List of printed written evidence 15
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 16
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 3
Summary
We welcome the commitment shown by everyone involved in the two programmes aimed at helping families facing multiple challenges. The close involvement of central and local agencies demonstrates that a joined-up approach is critical for effective planning and delivery, and for securing intended outcomes. However the existence of two similar, but separate, programmes run by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has resulted in confusion and unnecessary duplication. Both departments have tried to improve performance but they still have to resolve data-sharing difficulties, reduce variations in performance, and increase the programmes’ pace of progress. These actions are essential not only to turn around the lives of the troubled families involved, but also to deliver savings and demonstrate value for money.
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 5
Conclusions and recommendations
1. In 2006, the Government estimated that there were 120,000 families in England facing multiple challenges, such as unemployment and poor housing. It subsequently included other challenges, such as crime and antisocial behaviour. The estimated cost to the taxpayer of providing services to support these families is £9 billion a year, of which £8 billion is spent reacting to issues and £1 billion in trying to tackle them. In 2012, DCLG and DWP each introduced separate programmes to help these families. DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, with a central government budget of £448 million, aims to ‘turn around’ all 120,000 families by May 2015. DWP’s Families with Multiple Problems programme, with a budget of £200 million, seeks to move 22% of those joining the programme into employment by March 2015. Both programmes look to support families rather than individuals and to join up the activities of local service providers, who receive payment-by-results. DCLG pays local authorities up to £4,000 for each family that they have “turned around”. The judgement is based on ensuring children attend school, reducing youth crime and antisocial behaviour, and supporting adults into continuous employment. DWP pays contractors for tackling the barriers that clients face to finding employment, such as reducing antisocial behaviour and domestic violence, and for clients obtaining a steady job.
2. The good practice evident in DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, demonstrates how central and local government agencies can work together effectively. We welcome the commitment shown by all those involved in the DCLG’s programme to achieve lasting improvement in the lives of 120,000 troubled families by May 2015. The target set requires each of the 152 local authorities in England to identify and then “turn around” families that meet the definition of a troubled family. Each local authority has signed up to achieving real change for a sufficient number of troubled families for DCLG to meet the overall target of 120,000 families. Local authorities are taking action to bring services together, for example, by combining databases maintained by different agencies to help identify families. In addition, the programme has helped to galvanise a range of local services around This familiesis an and embargoedto provide a single person advance to support families’ copy. needs, and navigate their way around all the relevant services rather than the families having to deal with each Notagency to individually. be published Wefor also commendembargo in Louise any Casey details formCB, Director General of the DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, for her leadership of, and commitment to, thebefore programme. embargo time. See attached Press Recommendation:notice DCLG should identify good practice on how central and local agencies work together on its Troubled Families programme to secure a joined-up approach to local delivery. It should share this widely across the public sector, particularly in areas such as the health and social care sectors, where effective delivery at a local level relies on the coordination of multiple agencies.
6
3. The two programmes to help troubled families were designed and implemented separately, resulting in confusion and a lack of integration, and contributing to lower than expected performance during the early stages. There was no clear rationale for the simultaneous introduction of two separate programmes, which focused on addressing similar issues of crime, antisocial behaviour and employment amongst a section of the population with similar characteristics. Both departments introduced their programmes quickly, taking no longer than seven months to move from design to implementation. And both had innovative elements, such as payments for specified outcomes and for making progress towards employment. However, the integration of the programmes at the design phase was poor, leading to confusion, and contributing to the low number of referrals to the DWP’s programme. Both departments have taken steps to improve how their programmes work together. Specifically, 150 advisers from Jobcentre Plus have been seconded to 94 local authorities to provide practical support to local authorities, to help move family members closer to the labour market. Performance is now improving as a result.
Recommendation: The Government should learn lessons from the approach taken in this case to ensure that there is integrated policy making and implementation within, and across departments. The Government should agree a clear plan for delivery of the next phase of DCLG’s Troubled Families programme, from 2015.
4. The departments will not meet their targets without increasing the rate at which they have been succeeding in their work with troubled families. When the Comptroller and Auditor General reported in December 2013, both programmes were around half-way through their life. DCLG’s programme had succeeded with 22,000 families in the 19- month period to October 2013, leaving a further 98,000 families to be “turned around” by May 2015. DWP’s programme had achieved only 720 sustained employment outcomes by September 2013, around 4% of the programme’s expected performance. To meet their targets, the departments are reliant on individual local authorities and private providers delivering the necessary outcomes. But there are considerable variations in performance between local authorities and between providers, which put achieving the programmes’ objectives This atis risk. an embargoed advance copy. Recommendation: Thefor departments embargo must ensure detailsthat performance in each local Notauthority, to andbe by published each contractor, is scrutinised in any to pr formoperly manage the contracts giving appropriate support where appropriate, but also imposing sanctions where necessary.before embargo time. See attached Press 5. Efficient noticeand effective data sharing is required for the programmes to be delivered successfully. Government departments, local authorities and providers have experienced difficulties in sharing data, which have affected the programmes’ performance. We welcome the progress that the departments have made in tackling hurdles to sharing data. For example, DWP can now send its data on benefit recipients to DCLG to match names to its Troubled Families programme, and it has sent supporting guidance to local authorities to provide practical support. Data sharing is critical to identifying the families most in need of the support available within the two programmes, including data on their location and the issues they face.
7
While local authorities are looking to share data, variations in local practice persist, and other organisations, such as those in the health sector, may be less willing or able to share information. The bodies concerned need to overcome the cultural, statutory and regulatory hurdles which cause data to be withheld unnecessarily.
Recommendation: The departments should develop and disseminate clear guidance to local authorities. This should set out the data that local authorities can legally share and what practical steps they can take to overcome cultural barriers to sharing data among local agencies involved in delivery, alongside helping local authorities to meet their remaining legal responsibilities for data protection and confidentiality.
6. The departments need to demonstrate that the programmes deliver value for money. The departments’ programmes were predicated on securing financial as well as social benefits. For example, DCLG estimated that its programme would deliver a saving of £2.7 billion, if successfully implemented. DWP estimated that its programme could generate £2 in fiscal and social benefits for every £1 spent. Both departments have published details of progress, in terms of the numbers of families turned around and individuals that have moved towards employment. However, neither has monitored or assessed the financial savings and wider benefits that their programmes have delivered to date, such as the extent to which local authorities have restructured their services. Demonstrating value for money is essential for Parliament, the public and those involved in running the programmes locally, to have confidence in these and any future programmes of this nature. We therefore welcome DCLG’s development of a methodology to calculate the costs and benefits of its programme, which it needs to finalise and make available to local authorities as a matter of urgency. Reporting on the financial and non-financial benefits of the programmes will improve not only the transparency of the programmes’ performance, but will help support the case for future investment in this area.
Recommendation: Both departments should publish, alongside details of the programmes’ progress against their respective targets, details of the wider benefits and financial savings that they have identified. They should make clear what This proportionis an ofembargoed any financial savings are advance cash savings. copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
9
1 The programmes’ design and implementation
1. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on its Troubled Families programme and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on its Families with Multiple Problems programme.1 Both programmes aim to help families facing multiple challenges. We also took evidence from the Head of Targeted Services, Children’s Services, Leeds City Council; the Director of Children and Young People’s Services, Liverpool City Council; and the Chief Executive of Family Action.
2. In 2006, the Government estimated that there were 120,000 families in England facing multiple challenges, such as unemployment and poor housing. It subsequently included other challenges, such as crime and antisocial behaviour. The estimated cost to the taxpayer of providing services to support these families is £9 billion a year, spent either reacting to issues faced by families (£8 billion) or in trying to tackle them (£1 billion). In 2012, DCLG introduced its Troubled Families programme with a budget of £448 million, and DWP introduced its Families with Multiple Problems programme with a budget of £200 million, to help the families concerned over a three year period.2
3. Each programme has a target against which its ultimate success can be measured. The DCLG’s programme is intended to identify and then “turn around” 120,000 families in the period from April 2012 to May 2015. The DWP’s programme seeks to move 22% of those joining the programme into employment, and move the others towards employment. Both programmes include elements of payment-by-results. DCLG pays local authorities up to £4,000 for each family whom they have successfully supported, based on getting children back into school, reducing youth crime and antisocial behaviour, and supporting adults into continuous employment. DWP pays private contractors for tackling the barriers that clients face to finding employment, such as reducing antisocial behaviour and domestic violence, and for clients obtaining a steady job.3
4. DCLG’s target is ambitious, as it requires each of the 152 local authorities to transform Thisthe lives is of anan agreed embargoed number of families it advance has identified in itscopy. own area as meeting the definition of ‘troubled’. Each localfor authorit embargoy has shown a commitmentdetails to the programme’s successNot and tohas signed-upbe published to successfully work ining anywith a sufficientform number of troubled families for DCLG to meet its overall target of 120,000 families. DCLG told us that it was confidentbefore that it would achieveembargo its target. It attributedtime. the See programm attachede’s success to the Press fact that those in local government could see benefits for them, in terms of saving expenditure on, for example,notice children’s services. The policy commands support across the political spectrum which makes it easier to ensure commitment across local government and other agencies.
1 Comptroller and Auditor General, Programmes to help families facing multiple challenges, HC 878, 3 December 2013 2 Qq 78, 89, 126; C&AG’s Report, paras 1-2 3 C&AG’s Report, para 2, Figures 2 and 3
10
5. The Head of the Home Civil Service told us that DCLG’s Troubled Families programme was one of the most joined-up programmes across government, with six departments involved and partnership working locally. DCLG noted that the programme was about trying to get local areas to see how they could restructure services to avoid a position of numerous agencies “circling these families” and not achieving real change. Encouraging the different agencies involved to work together is fundamental to the programme’s success.4 For example, Leeds City Council told us that it had to work with over 100 different agencies.5 And Liverpool City Council emphasised the need to reduce the number of agencies that dealt directly with each family.6
6. Both departments introduced their programmes quickly, taking no longer than seven months to move from design to implementation. The speed with which the departments introduced their programmes limited the opportunity to identify and mitigate risks to successful delivery. The departments should be credited for introducing some innovative features into their programmes, such as a single payment for multiple outcomes, and for moving a participant towards employment.7
7. There is no clear rationale for the existence of two separate programmes designed to help families facing multiple challenges. Whilst the programmes have different objectives, each funds improvement in, for example, truancy, antisocial behaviour and employability, meaning that effort was duplicated. The two programmes were designed without joint governance arrangements and had separate business cases. The absence of integration during the design phase led to confusion amongst those delivering the programmes and contributed to the low levels of performance for DWP’s programme. For example, local authorities were initially uncertain about the remit of the two programmes, and therefore delayed referrals to the DWP’s programme.8
8. We asked the departments why there were two separate programmes trying to do the same thing. DCLG told us that when it started working on its Troubled Families programme, DWP had already made progress, and was ahead with, the Families with Multiple Problems programme, which receives funding from the European Social Fund. A judgement had been taken to move quickly by proceeding with both programmes and ensure they were joined up. The departments pointed to the action they have taken action to align the programmes, noting the sharing of data in both directions and the seconding of This150 advisers is an from embargoed Jobcentre Plus to 94 local advance authorities. Jo bcentrecopy. Plus advisers offer support such as highlighting fortraining embargo opportunities and detailsimproving job interview skills.9 LeedsNot City toCouncil be told published us that the Jobcentre in Plu anys support form was funda mental to local authoritiesbefore helping suppor embargot members of a family time. move towards See employment. attached10 Press notice
4 Qq 76, 90; C&AG’s Report, para 5 5 Q 17 6 Q 39 7 Qq 98, 124; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14, 3.2 8 Qq 68, 90, 146; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14, 2.29, 2.31, 3.4 9 Qq 68, 70-72, 90; C&AG’s Report, para 3.22 10 Q 28
11
2 Securing value for money from the programmes
9. Both the DCLG’s Troubled Families programme and the DWP’s Families with Multiple Problems programme have approximately one year to go before a final assessment of their value for money can be made.11 Family Action told us that it had seen good progress with troubled families, with regards to improving school attendance and reducing antisocial behaviour, although there had been less progress in getting people into employment.12 The most recent performance information, for the period April 2012 to October 2012, showed that the DCLG’s programme had successfully supported 22,000 families, 3% ahead of its expectations. It therefore needed to succeed with a further 98,000 families to achieve the target it had set at the beginning of the programme. However, the National Audit Office found that attachments to the programme—the necessary first step to turning families around—for the period April 2012 to September 2013 were 13% behind the DCLG’s expectations of performance. Local authorities will have to improve the rate at which they attach families to the programme, for DCLG to meet its target. The National Audit Office found that DCLG had intervened with local authorities where performance was below expectations. It had engaged with the 41 lowest performing local authorities, in terms of actual compared to agreed attachments, in the first year of the operation of its programme.13
10. The most recent performance information on the DWP’s programme showed that in the 18-month period to September 2013, only 720 sustained job outcomes were recorded, around 4% of the 19,800 number that the National Audit Office calculated would be a reasonable estimate of satisfactory progress. The DWP admitted that it was not meeting its objective, agreed with the European Social Fund, of moving 22% of participants into employment. However, it explained that this rate had been based on data from before the recession, drawing on groups of people who were easier to help. The DWP also noted that data for participants receiving Jobseekers Allowance who had completed the programme showed that between 12% and 14% moved into employment.
11. The National Audit Office’s analysis showed that performance varied considerably Thisfrom localis authorityan embargoed to local authority, and advance between providers, copy. delivering the DWP’s programme. For example, thefor best performingembargo local authority details achieved 270% of its first yearNot target forto attachments, be published and the lowest perf inorming any local authorityform achieved just 33%. A considerable number of local authorities (over 100) failed to achieve their target. None of the privatebefore providers embargoon the DWP progra time.mme achieved See theirattached target number Press of attachments to the programme, and the percentage of the target that providers reached varied from 7%notice to 74%. DWP accepted that there was variation between the providers, which it had sought to address by working with them to generate more referrals to the
11 Qq 68, 159; C&AG’s Report, paras 2 & 4 12 Q 50 13 Q 95; C&AG’s Report, paras 3.11, 3.15
12
programme. It expected the number of referrals to increase, largely as a result of the staff it had seconded to local authorities.14
12. To help identify families to join the DCLG’s programme, local authorities need to bring together information held on databases owned by a number of different agencies. Local authorities identified improved data collection and sharing as a benefit of the DCLG’s programme. Both DCLG and DWP were aware of the issues and were keen to take action. However, despite some evidence of progress, variations in practice across local authorities persist and some organisations, such as those in the health sector and the police, may be less willing or less able to share information.15
13. The DCLG told us that some quite significant advances on data sharing had been made, but it considered that the barrier to data sharing was not often a legal one, but down to culture and practice. However, some issues genuinely required legal change. DWP noted the significance of two legal changes: the first allowed it to share data on benefit recipients with local authorities, which would help them to identify families that met the criteria for joining the DCLG’s programme; and the second enabled local authorities to tell DWP who was on the Troubled Families programme. DWP had also made available to local authorities limited guidance explaining how data protection works, and the steps that could be taken to share data within those boundaries.16
14. The business case for each programme included an estimate of the financial savings successful interventions might deliver. In its original business case, DCLG estimated that its programme would save £2.9 billion, a figure it subsequently revised to £2.7 billion. DWP estimated that its programme would save £2 for every £1 spent.17 DCLG told us that it was developing a methodology to help local authorities calculate the costs and benefits of supporting troubled families. DCLG noted that three local authorities had looked in detail at the costs and savings associated with the programme. Manchester City Council estimated that it had a net saving of £35,000 a year for each family. The equivalent figures for Leicestershire County Council and the London Borough of Wandsworth were £27,500 and £29,000 respectively. The departments agreed that a framework for testing value for money could helpfully differentiate between different types of costs—such as marginal and capital—and then between cashable and non-cashable savings.18 This15. In additionis an to embargoed the financial benefits ofadvance their programmes, copy. the departments have identified other benefits that would accrue from their successful implementation and that theyNot needed to to considerbe published thesefor within embargo their a ssessmentin any ofdetails value form of money. For example, DCLG was looking to encourage local authorities to restructure their approach to supportingbefore families by joiningembargo up services and time. developing See new ways attached of working. DWP Press told us that it wanted to move people towards, as well as into, employment.19 The Head of the Home Civil Servicenotice considered that there were three important lessons from these
14 Qq 128-130, 147; C&AG’s Report, para 3.10, Figures 7 - 10 15 Qq 21, 79-80, 93; C&AG’s Report, para 3.23 16 Q 80; C&AG’s Report, para 3.23 17 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.8, 1.10 18 Qq 116, 127, 132, 166 19 Qq 76, 98; C&AG’s report, paras 1.5,2.11
13
programmes to be shared across government: the first was about shared endeavour between central and local government; the second was about the focus on outcomes through payment-by-results; and the third was about encouraging local partnership.20
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
20 Q116
14
Formal Minutes
Monday 24 March 2014
Members present:
Mrs Margaret Hodge, in the Chair
Mr Richard Bacon Stewart Jackson Stephen Barclay Austin Mitchell Chris Heaton-Harris Nick Smith Meg Hillier Justin Tomlinson
Draft Report (The rural broadband programme), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 15 read and agreed to.
Conclusions and recommendations agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fify-first Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report.
This is an embargoed advance[Adjourned till copy.Wednesday 26 March at 2.00 pm Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
15
Witnesses
Wednesday 29 January 2014 Page
Jim Hopkinson, Head of Targeted Services, Children’s Services, Leeds City Council, Colette O’Brien, Director, Children and Young People’s Services, Liverpool City Council and David Holmes, Chief Executive, Family Action Ev 1
Louise Casey, Director General, Troubled Families, Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government and Head of the Home Civil Service and Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions Ev 10
List of printed written evidence
1 Family Action Ev 30 2 Department for Communities and Local Government Ev 30 3 Leeds City Council Ev 31 4 Liverpool City Council Ev 32
This is an embargoed advance copy. for embargo details Not to be published in any form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
16
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.
Session 2013–14 First Report Ministry of Defence: Equipment Plan 2012-2022 and Major HC 53 Projects Report 2012 Second Report Early Action: landscape review HC 133 Third Report Department for Communities and Local Government: HC 134 Financial sustainability of local authorities Fourth Report HM Revenue & Customs: tax credits error and fraud HC 135 Fifth Report Department for Work and Pensions: Responding to change HC 136 in jobcentres Sixth Report Cabinet Office: Improving government procurement and HC 137 the impact of government’s ICT savings initiative Seventh Report Charity Commission: the Cup Trust and tax avoidance HC 138 Eighth Report Regulating Consumer Credit HC 165 Ninth Report Tax Avoidance – Google HC 112 Tenth Report Serious Fraud Office – redundancy and severance HC 360 arrangements Eleventh Report Department of Health: managing hospital consultants HC 358 Twelfth Report Department for Education: Capital funding for new school HC 359 places Thirteenth Report Civil Service Reform HC 473 Fourteenth Report Integration across government and Whole-Place HC 472 Community Budgets Fifteenth Report The provision of the out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall HC 471 Sixteenth Report FiRe Control HC 110 ThisSeventeenth is Reportan embargoed Administering the Equitable advance Life Payment Scheme copy. HC 111 Eighteenth Report Carrier Strike:for the embargo2012 reversion decision details HC 113 NineteenthNot Report to be The published dismantled National Programme in any for IT inform the NHS HC 294 Twentieth Report The BBC’s move to Salford HC 293 Twenty-firstbefore Report Police embargo Procurement time. See attached HCPress 115 Twenty-second Reportnotice High Speed 2: a review of early programme preparation HC 478 Twenty-third Report HM Revenue & Customs: Progress in tackling tobacco HC 297 smuggling Twenty-fourth Report The rural broadband programme HC 474 Twenty-fifth Report The Duchy of Cornwall HC 475 Twenty-sixth Report Progress in delivering the Thameslink programme HC 296 Twenty-seventh Report Charges for customer telephone lines HC 617 Twenty-eighth Report The fight against Malaria HC 618
17
Twenty-ninth Report The New Homes Bonus HC 114 Thirtieth Report Universal Credit: early progress HC 619 Thirty-first Report The Border Force: securing the border HC 663 Thirty-second Report Whole of Government Accounts 2011-12 HC 667 Thirty-third Report BBC severance packages HC 476 Thirty-fourth Report HMRC Tax Collection: Annual Report & Accounts 2012-13 HC 666 Thirty-fifth Report Access to clinical trial information and the Stockpiling of HC 295 Tamiflu
Thirty-sixth Report Confidentiality clauses and special severance payments HC 477 Thirty-seventh Report Supporting UK exporters overseas HC 709 Thirty-eighth Report Improving access to finance from small and medium-sized HC 775 enterprises Thirty-ninth Report The Sovereign Grant HC 665 Fortieth Report Maternity services in England HC 776 Forty-first Report Gift Aid and other reliefs on charitable donations HC 835 Forty-second Report The Charity Commission HC 792 Forty-third Report Progress at Sellafield HC 708 Forty-fourth Report Student loan repayments HC 886 Forty-fifth Report Excess votes 2012-13 HC 1068 Forty-sixth Report Emergency admissions to hospital HC 885 Forty-seventh Report Contracting out public services to the private sector HC 777 Forty-eighth Report Council tax support HC 943 Forty-ninth Report Confiscation Orders HC 942
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form
before embargo time. See attached Press notice
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Committee of Public Accounts on Wednesday 29 January 2014
Members present: Margaret Hodge (Chair)
Mr Richard Bacon Fiona Mactaggart Stephen Barclay Austin Mitchell Guto Bebb Nick Smith Chris Heaton-Harris Ian Swales Meg Hillier Justin Tomlinson Mr Stewart Jackson ______
Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General , National Audit Office, Gabrielle Cohen, Assistant Auditor General, National Audit Office, Marius Gallaher, Alternate Treasury Officer of Accounts, and Tom McDonald, National Audit Office Study Team, were in attendance.
REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
Programme to help families facing multiple challenges (HC 878)
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Jim Hopkinson, Head of Targeted Services, Children’s Services, Leeds City Council, Colette O'Brien, Director, Children and Young People’s Services, Liverpool City Council and David Holmes, Chief Executive, Family Action, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Welcome. I think you probably know the Q2 Chair: What do you mean by “turned around”? drill, but this first part is short. What we really want Jim Hopkinson: We mean that we will have children to hear from you is what you, as people on the ground back at school. We will have levels of— who are experiencing the programme in one way or another, think are the key issues that need to be Q3 Chair: Left school or back at school? addressed. We are coming at this halfway through the Jim Hopkinson: Back at school. Levels of youth programme, so there is time to think whether anything crime and antisocial behaviour will be significantly could be amended. DCLG is talking about extending reduced and, most importantly—it is a new way of the programme post-2015. This is to reflect on what working for us in children’s services—we will have works, what doesn’t work, what is frustrating and supported adults in the family to come off benefits and what is good about it. Who wants to start? Do you return to work. We are quite confident that we are want to start from Leeds, Jim? Should I go across the starting to get some sustainable outcomes, which will three of you? mean savings to the public purse and the Leeds pound. ThisJim Hopkinson: is anMy nameembargoed is Jim Hopkinson. I am the advance copy. head of targeted services for Leeds city council, and Q4 Chair: How many families are you working I have a portfolio of responsibilityfor for the Troubledembargowith? How manydetails families did you think you would FamiliesNot programme to inbe Leeds, published which we call Families inhave whoany fit the criteria?form Jim Hopkinson: First. I am delighted to be working so closely with Our target in Leeds is to work with 2,190 families. When we did our identification, we CLG on this programme. It was a methodology of found nearly 3,000 families who met the criteria set work that webefore were seeking toembargo do anyway in Leeds— time. See attached Press by CLG plus our individual local criteria. We really what we call “think family” work—and it has really welcomed the opportunity to have our local criteria helped us motivatenotice our other partners to buy into the added on to that. “think family” approach. The approach of one family, one plan, gripped by one lead practitioner is Q5 Chair: What are they? absolutely the sort of programme that we are looking Jim Hopkinson: Our local criteria are having a child for. It has given us the impetus to increase our in need, children on child protection plans and what intensive family support to bring partners around the we call high-repeat call-outs of the police to table, both strategically and operationally, to run this households, because that indicates a high-cost family programme. and often—not always, but often—a family where We believe that we are seeing results, in terms of domestic violence is prevalent. In the first year, we turning families around. We anticipate that we will worked with just short of 1,000 families, and we have have turned around more than 35% of all our families so far managed to claim on 532 of those families. We by the end of the next claim period, which is on 14 are still continuing to support many of them, but we February. are confident— Ev 2 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Q6 Nick Smith: You “claimed on” 532 families? members of staff from Jobcentre Plus and two Jim Hopkinson: Those 532 families are families additional workers just joining. That has been an where we were in a position to submit a payment by incredible boost to the work that we have done, and results claim. We believe that for many of those the work that our lead practitioners are now able to families, it is not just a PBR claim; it is a sustainable do around moving families closer to the labour force. outcome, provided we continue to support those families. Q13 Chair: Just to get it clear, you got 19 into work. Jim Hopkinson: Six months or more—sustainable. Q7 Fiona Mactaggart: I am looking at figure 8 in the NAO Report. Does that put you in the top six Q14 Chair: Out of the people who joined in year 1? authorities? We are now going into year 3, so you have been Jim Hopkinson: That was the NAO Report at that working with them for over a year. time. I would not know where we are in the ranking Jim Hopkinson: The only caution I would give is that of authorities now, because there would have been that is partly about the systems that we had in place other claim periods since then. There have been three to ask the question. The work that we need to do to claim periods to date. In Leeds, we have so far evidence that is quite complicated. Actually claiming managed to turn around about 24% of our entire for PBR is a complicated process and we have got cohort. better and smarter at it. We do need to invest quite a lot of time in it, so we are probably in a better position Q8 Austin Mitchell: How do you define a to ask the question. sustainable outcome, or turning them around? Jim Hopkinson: There are two aspects to the Q15 Chair: I don’t understand any of that. outcome. The outcome is obviously whether we have Jim Hopkinson: What we need to do is to get the mathematically demonstrated that we have children families and check that they are still living at that back at school, whether we have mathematically address—we have to do all sorts of address demonstrated a reduction in antisocial behaviour or verifications. We then pass all that data to DWP, and crime, or demonstrated that those are families who DWP then gives us that data back. Then we match that have come off— data against attendance data, crime data and antisocial behaviour data. So it is an administrative task that we Q9 Austin Mitchell: Is it one criterion, or several? have got better and smarter at, but it does take quite Jim Hopkinson: There are three separate criteria that some time. we are seeking to achieve in order to claim for the family. Q16 Mr Jackson: Obviously, from what you have said, it seems that Leeds has made a good start. You Q10 Austin Mitchell: So in those families, you have are to be commended for that. Can I ask you achieved on all three? specifically about how you treat the whole cohort? Jim Hopkinson: Not necessarily all three. We need to This is a programme over three years. One of the achieve on two, or we need to achieve on the work concerns I had with my local authority is that it was outcome, but actually for the families whom we have quite opaque in the way it said, “Well, we are working claimed for in Leeds, it is fundamentally on with the families” when, in fact, what happened was attendance, and reduction in crime and antisocial they spent months and months so-called scoping, and behaviour, because it took us just a bit longer to get then they gave the ones whom they were not directly our systems in place to ask the question about work working with a DVD. They took exception to the fact Thisdestination—about is an families embargoed coming off benefits. advancethat I thought that wascopy. not a good idea. My question is: are you working with all those 2,000-plus at Q11 Chair: So out of the 1,000 thatfor you started embargo work different levels details of activity? In other words, are you withNot in year to 1, how be many published have you got a work inincrementally any taking form blocks and intensively working outcome for? with a block? Or are you working with all the 2,500, Jim Hopkinson: There are not that many cases where because obviously some will be higher priority than we have claimedbefore for the work embargo outcome, and that istime.others? If thereSee is a dangerattached to a child or seriousPress because we haven’t asked the question— domestic violence, I agree that that must be a priority, so how do you prioritise, and are you working with Q12 Chair: Hownotice many? the whole cohort with the resources that you have on Jim Hopkinson: Just 19 at this moment in time. the city council? However, we have another claim coming in February. Jim Hopkinson: We did not work with our whole There are two aspects of the claim: whether it is cohort of 2,190 families on day one. Our system, very progress to work or sustainable work, which means briefly, was to identify our families. What we have in you have been in work for six months. I hope that Leeds is locality working. We call them clusters. We number will increase, and in fact our challenge from have 25 clusters. We parcelled the first cohort of those our chief executive is very much that he wants to see families, which was about 1,000—so just under half— that figure increase. The massive boost that we have into our 25 locality areas. Using some funding and had is the secondment of Jobcentre Plus employees to some of our match funding, we essentially have 25 our programme. We have a central programme team local troubled family co-ordinators in each one of with some local authority workers, a senior probation those localities, each working with a population of officer, an inspector-level police officer and now two 30,000 to 40,000 or so. Each one had a list of maybe Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 3
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
50 or so families, and we asked them to make sure Q18 Mr Jackson: This is my last question. Clearly, that those families had an assessment in place and a you are on top of it and we wish you success in lead practitioner in place to grip the family. achieving your objectives by 2015, but are you We prioritised those families into higher risk, higher sharing good practice across west Yorkshire—with need, and of course many of those were already Bradford or Calderdale—or any of the other local working with services. Some of them were lower need authorities, or further than west Yorkshire? Obviously, or not on the radar of services, as we would like them there will be a common interest and common issues to be. The task we gave our local troubled family co- identified. ordinator was to make sure that each one of those Jim Hopkinson: Hugely, and I take this opportunity families has the assessment, has the team around the to commend CLG for the support they are giving us family, and one plan with a lead practitioner in place around work force development, pulling together to grip that family. We have done that incrementally learning across the authorities. When we started, we and released more families for those local troubled had to develop our own systems of identification, and family co-ordinators to work with. They check that I explained how complicated some of our systems of the details that we have about the family from the identification and recording for payment by results computer are correct, that there is an assessment in were. We have learned from other authorities about place, that there is a lead practitioner, and that they are better systems of doing that and shared our in our intensive family support services. That process methodologies with other authorities. We get together works quite well. and share, as a region and as core cities, and it is in In year 2, we brought in what we called a “referral our interest in Leeds that other areas of the country in” process. In year 1 we used identification from a do as well as Leeds, because we want this programme series of different databases—police, youth offending, to continue, we want to see sustainable outcomes, and attendance and worklessness—because we know that we want to learn from best practice elsewhere. It is in in those localities, families come up on the radar and our interest to share best practice and we commend police get concerned about families, and we need to the support that CLG gives us to do that. make sure that we do not exclude those families by Chair: It is 20 to three, guys. I have three people who saying, “They weren’t on the original list.” So we want to ask Jim Hopkinson a question, and then we have an opportunity to refer those families in to make must move to the other two, so short and sharp if that sure that we work with those as well. is all right. Amyas Morse: I add my congratulations on what you Q17 Mr Jackson: How much humanity is involved are doing. First, you put your planned results to in this? It sounds quite process-driven. I think DCLG; have you exceeded those results or not? While “troubled families” is a politically correct name. They you are thinking about that one, are you putting non- are troublesome families—in my constituency, matched funding in, or are you just up to the matched exceedingly troublesome. Do you actually get in and funding level? make value judgments for these individuals and the Jim Hopkinson: We are up to the matched funding families—in other words, confront them with the level. Most of our matched funding is funding in kind consequences of their actions and then say, “You can that comes from probation, from the police, from our take a different path; we’re here to help you”? community safety department and from health. As for Matching databases seems mechanistic. How where we are going to get to, it is fair to say that at intimately involved are they in plotting a course for the start of the programme it will be very difficult for their own future and for their families? us to speculate on how many families we will turn Jim Hopkinson: That is a really good question. The around. We did have what we called a family Thisidentification is ofan families embargoed is mechanistic, if you like. Itadvance copy. intervention programme. We would speculate that we is a series of computer databases that we match would be achieving results around what that together to get household-level data.for We thenembargo send details programme achieved, and in fact we used some of the thatNot out to ourto locality-based be published troubled family co- in any form funding we received to increase our intensive family ordinators, and they do the work around who already support offering in Leeds. On budgeting, we initially knows thebefore family; who is workingembargo with the family; time. See attached Press and what team. One family, one plan, written by one started budgeting on the grounds of receiving payment lead practitioner. That lead practitioner comes and by results on 50% of those families. We have now leads from overnotice 100 different agencies, so is best done three rounds of payment by results and we are placed to go out, knock on the door of that family and confident enough to increase that, for budgeting offer what we call a high support, high challenge purposes, to 75% that we hope that we will be model. It is high support and high challenge, so achieving payment by results for, and that is not the sanctions are in place where sanctions are needed; end of our ambition. Our ambition is to go higher, but support is in place where support is needed. That is that is where we are for budgeting purposes. where the humanity comes in, because unless you have a suitably qualified and motivated trained worker Q19 Guto Bebb: I have just two questions. First, you who can go out and offer that open and honest mentioned that you are working with 100 different conversation with the family—high support, high agencies and the lead practitioner would be selected challenge—we will not get anywhere. So it is about on who was more relevant to supporting the family the skill set of the worker who goes out and knocks in question. on that family’s door. Jim Hopkinson: Who is best. Ev 4 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Q20 Guto Bebb: Is that an indication that this turned around 35% of our families. In terms of your programme has pulled together these partnerships and question about the attendance rate for the children we agencies in a way that didn’t previously exist? work with, every child is an individual and every Jim Hopkinson: I think it has helped to galvanise. We family is individual. That is the beauty of the system, have a programme board that is chaired by the deputy I guess, gripped by a lead practitioner who knows leader of the local authority, with very senior what the individual issues are for that family and what representatives. The commander of police is on that processes we need to put in place. board, and there is senior representation from all the Some of those children in some families would have agencies that you would expect to be there. It has good attendance records but other issues, or there will helped to galvanise that. We did have a “think family” be some members of the family with poor attendance protocol, so it is not new to us to say we need to have and others with good attendance. Each family is a team around a family—one family, one plan, different, and that is why the approach and the work gripped by one lead practitioner—but it has certainly that we need to do with that family has to be helped us to galvanise that. For example, it has helped individualised. us to do an awful lot of work force development among all those agencies that are supplying people Q23 Nick Smith: I am not quite satisfied with that. who are best placed to be lead practitioners, and it has Children going to school is really important for all allowed us to provide a significant amount of funding families. to the third sector, which is sometimes best placed to Jim Hopkinson: Of course, I agree. offer challenge and support to these families, because they have had poor experiences with some statutory Q24 Nick Smith: So do you or don’t you have data services. about children’s attendance from the families whom you have been supporting? Q21 Guto Bebb: My second point is about the 19 Jim Hopkinson: Oh, yes. job outcomes that you mentioned had been achieved. You mentioned that there was a very complex process Q25 Nick Smith: What does that show? Can you say of identifying the information in order to make the off the top of your head, or can you get more claim. Is that an indication that perhaps there is a information for us? degree of complexity in the programme that is Jim Hopkinson: I would have to get more problematic, or is it a case of teething problems that information for you, but clearly we know the have now been resolved? attendance records of the children at the time they Jim Hopkinson: I would say it was teething problems come on the programme. We want to make sure that that have now been resolved. We probably those children are no longer persistently absent from underestimated, in our authority, the work it was the school as part of saying they can come off the going to take to identify and do the work for PBR. programme. Without that, we would not expect them We want to make sure that we make our returns with to come off the programme. a high degree of integrity. We do not want to be in the position of claiming for families who will then be on Q26 Stephen Barclay: What is the highest number the front page of our newspaper for doing something of days truant a child could have and still be judged else. That would make the programme look rather a success? silly. It just took us longer than we anticipated to set Jim Hopkinson: We would have to have attendance up the systems. We are still modifying our above 85%. administrative systems for both identification and Thisclaiming, is and learningan embargoed from other authorities. We will advanceQ27 Nick Smith: Cancopy. I come back on my second continue to do so. question? I really would like to see that data. I want There are a lot of different databasesfor that we embargo have to to know what details success you have in getting youngsters bringNot together to for identification, be published and a lot of different ininto school. any form databases that we have to ask questions of, to the Jim Hopkinson: I can provide that as a written degree of integrity that we need for claiming those answer. results. before embargo time. See attached Press Q28 Nick Smith: One of the early answers you gave Q22 Nick Smith: Mr Hopkinson, it seems to me that was that only 19 out of 1,000 families had seen some you have a supportivenotice and challenging framework return into employment, which didn’t seem very good, around your local families; thumbs up to you on that. but these things take time to establish, I am sure. What You talked about a 35% success rate in getting kids measures have you now taken to improve that bad into school and reducing antisocial behaviour. Will start? you tell us more about that? What were the attendance Jim Hopkinson: Loads of stuff. As I said, the first records before and after your intervention with these thing is bringing Jobcentre Plus workers into the core families? programme team, which has been fundamental. It has Jim Hopkinson: I obviously did not explain myself been fundamental to us being able to ask the question, adequately. So far, we have submitted a claim for and fundamental to our ability to work with lead about half of all the families whom we started work practitioners on the ground, to support and challenge with in year 1. Of our overall cohort, that is about them to say: “What are you doing to support this 24%. I was trying to say that by the end of the next family to move closer to the labour market or move claim period, in February, we hope we will have into work, to make sure that we are referring families Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 5
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
to the Work programme and that no family is being family support via the pupil premium, to assist in the left unmotivated?” The issue around that is the early intervention work that is so important in this cultural change among the lead practitioners and about programme. saying: “As part of my work with that family, I am This is about turning off the tap and not just about challenging them to move towards the labour market”. delivering a programme. It is about what happens at That is the work that we have been doing. the end of it. We have had lots of programmes over the years; what makes this different, and why people Q29 Chair: I want to move us on, but can I quickly are so engaged with it in Liverpool, is how we make ask what proportion of your families have children on it live beyond the life of the grant. We are challenged the at-risk register? as a local authority: within the next three years, we Jim Hopkinson: I would have to— will be 53% leaner than we were six years before. We have got to find different ways of supporting our Q30 Chair: Can you let us know? families, and we feel we can justifiably engage Jim Hopkinson: I can provide that, yes. schools in this by the work they will have done with the families programme over the next couple of years. Q31 Chair: What proportion of your families would That is quite an unusual and different way of spending you classify as having children in poverty? some of that money. Jim Hopkinson: Again, I could let you know, but it We have also looked at engaging our registered social would be a significant proportion. landlords and paying for some housing support officers to work with them in identifying the families Q32 Chair: It would be interesting, because of the who are experiencing antisocial behaviour difficulties change of definition, to see what happened. I will in connection with their tenancy. Those innovative move on. Colette, you are from Liverpool, so try to ways are slightly different. We are looking, at the next give us not the same picture, but anything else, and period, really to engage health colleagues. We have things that you think we ought to interrogate the engaged them to a point, but that is where we feel we accounting officers on, when we get to them. Perhaps could develop the programme still more over the next you could talk a little about where the challenges have year and in the programme’s extension year, so that been in putting the programme together. It can be they are embedded in the work of supporting families. anything you like, really, but try to add value rather than repeat the same thing, as time is a constraint. Q33 Mr Bacon: May I stop you there? Might, Thank you. therefore, a health person be one of the 100 agencies Colette O'Brien: I will try to do that. I am Colette which Mr Hopkinson mentioned who turns out to be O’Brien, the director of children’s services in the lead practitioner in a particular case? The person Liverpool. Take a lot of that as read, as we were who knocks on the door within the ambit of the talking outside and there are lots of similarities programme being from the health sphere—does that between big cities. Liverpool has a third of its child happen already? population living in poverty—they qualify for free Colette O'Brien: It does, but to a very limited degree. school meals, for example—so that gives you some idea of the picture. Of our child protection plans, 64% Q34 Mr Bacon: And you are saying that it should are for neglect. That should set the scene. happen— Some of the things you might find interesting from Colette O'Brien: It should happen a lot more. Over the families programme in Liverpool—we have the last couple of years it would be fair to say that the dropped the “troubled” among ourselves as officers— NHS has been through quite a turbulent period. So Thisare that weis built an on our embargoed “total families” work, as Jim advancecertainly in the last yearcopy. it was difficult even to know said, to begin with. We have found it a really useful who to speak to. Who were you talking to? The CCG? vehicle to engage our schools asfor partners, embargo because As the PCT details morphed into the CCG: Liverpool sometimes,Not when to you be are workingpublished with schools on incommunity any health, form the acute trust? So we have this kind of agenda—they may say our objectives are struggled to engage with some of our health teaching and learning, and I get that—we are colleagues through no fault of their own. They are increasinglybefore looking to schools, embargo now that they have time.coming to theSee table inattached the programme. I think Press the the pupil premium and broader responsibilities, to payment-by-results element has assisted with that. It help us deliver this programme. They have become isn’t necessarily the bait that gets them there but it extremely engagednotice in Liverpool—they are very keeps them there. We like that bit locally. We like the enthusiastic. two elements. We like the up-front funding because So, on to some of the work that might be slightly that allows you to pump-prime. Without that it is very different and of interest, troubled families has helped difficult to add to your capacity in current times. us to work on a pupil tracker tool. That tool enables head teachers to know which services have been Q35 Mr Bacon: Can I be clear about that? You are working with children on their roll, and that is saying that the health people are more likely to come something that they are finding extremely useful. We along and stay because if they do they get a piece of are just in the design and pilot stage now. the action financially? That is what you are saying? We are also putting in place a school-family support Colette O'Brien: Locally, that piece of the action is service. I like that, because in terms of sustainability work force development. We are not talking about beyond the life of the programme, we will trade that scrabbling around for who gets what. We are talking with schools. We will be looking for them to purchase about training staff. Staff training is what we have Ev 6 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
invested our payment-by-results money in. So, yes, and focus the work because they can just go round in health colleagues get a piece of that. I did not just an endless circle of intervention. These are the mean health when I said that payment by results keeps families who keep coming back. There isn’t a simple people at the table; I would not like you to think that. solution. Hence the fact we sometimes talk about low It helps to focus the mind and it helps to keep us numbers of success because they do return and return. focused on the outcomes that we want to achieve, so We need to keep the numbers small and keep the lead we quite like the payment-by-results element. But I professional there so that they have one person who don’t like it exclusively. We like the up-front money they learn to trust who is co-ordinating what happens as well. We want everything, don’t we? But the up- to them. Very often that is the family support worker front money helps us to add to the capacity building who actually goes round and knocks on the door, and at the start. if there is an issue around attendance, helps to organise that child getting up in the morning and Q36 Mr Bacon: So you are saying that the health getting out to school. That is very practical work. colleagues feel when they come along that they are Often, people say they want social care. They don’t learning something that helps them to do their job want social care. They want family support in better? organising what can be a family that just needs a bit Colette O'Brien: Yes, and they engage better with the of help to get their act together to get their child up, common assessment framework, for example, through out and ready in the morning. the shared learning and through the work force development. We have had a problem locally in Q40 Ian Swales: Can I build on that point? You embedding our common assessment. The families mentioned earlier about schools and the pupil programme has helped us with that. premium. In parts of my constituency I have 50%- plus free school meals and in one case, 80% free Q37 Meg Hillier: Which groups of health school meals. When you talk to the heads about what professionals are you working with most? they are doing with the money, it is quite clear that Colette O'Brien: We are working with the CCGs as they are having to invest in things to do with families, commissioners but we are also working with not to do with frontline education, because in order to Liverpool community health—our provider arm. It is produce results with those children, they are having to the provider arm, the health visitor, the school nurse reach out beyond the school and into their families. who is the lead professional, who works up front in Can you say a bit more about how that is working in co-ordinating what happens with that family. Liverpool and how willing the schools who get this money are to engage in the sort of work you are Q38 Meg Hillier: So it is those on-the-ground doing? people. Colette O'Brien: We have something quite interesting Colette O'Brien: Yes. They are on the ground. going on in Liverpool called the Liverpool learning partnership. One of the things that we have to deal Q39 Austin Mitchell: You have given us the picture with now is this changing education landscape. We from the top down of the numbers involved and how have these things called academies and free schools it is working. Can you tell us about the bottom up? I and studio schools and UTCs and every other thing know there is no typical problem family, and in my you can think of. It is very easy to become very family I am the problem rather than the rest of the fragmented as a system. family. But say I am a problem family: how often What they have decided to do locally—and I am a would I be visited? Who would I be visited by? How partner in that—is to create a collaboration of schools. Thisdo all the is people an participating embargoed get co-ordinated? Is itadvanceIt doesn’t replace thecopy. local authority. It is a different through one person or are there multiple visits? way of delivering. All of our schools—we have 85% You’ve got the DWP, the Communitiesfor and embargo Local sign-up to this—pay details a fee per pupil and that money is Government,Not butto you’ve be also published got the police and the input together any into aform pot to commission projects. So at Probation Service. You’ve got the schools. You’ve got the moment schools are getting bombarded with the housing department. They are all playing a part in people saying, “You are the only ones with any this. Whobefore co-ordinates all that?embargo If I am a problem time.money—can See you pay forattached this, can you pay for Press that?” family do I have one person I can get in touch with What we are doing is going to that partnership and when problems come along or I am facing real saying, “With your pooled budget, can you pay for difficulties? notice X?” Colette O'Brien: You have one person in the lead professional but you will have other agencies who will Q41 Ian Swales: On this agenda? be called in. One of the things that has been so Colette O'Brien: On this agenda, and on other important in this programme is trying to minimise the agendas. They are not just feeling like they are putting number of people a family has to deal with. We found their hands in their pocket, as the pooled budget is before the programme when we were working on paying the cost. So we are saying, “Would you like to Total Family, that a troubled family could have 12, 14 commission a CAMHS project? Would you like to professionals. We don’t knock on the door and say, commission some family support?” So at the end of “Hello, are you a troubled family?” So we dropped this programme—and I have told them this from the that bit. We prefer to knock on the door and say, “We start, I will be trading family support workers who are are going to work with you.” You really need to currently part of the families programme—I will be minimise the number of people they are engaged with saying to them, “Would you like to buy this Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 7
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
partnership for our schools? Would our primary Colette O'Brien: All our reserves will be committed. schools’ small clusters like to buy a family support Chair: Stephen, it is a bit unfair to ask her because worker? Would our secondary schools or academies she is not the finance person. like to buy a family support worker?” That is how we are engaging them, rather than saying, “pay for this, Q48 Stephen Barclay: It is material. The evidence pay for that.” we are getting is that pressure on the finances is impacting on the programme at a time when reserves Q42 Ian Swales: Thank you. It is clear from reading are increasing, council tax is not collected and the Report and from the evidence that we are hearing Liverpool, on the figures I have from the Department, that there is likely to be a capacity issue here. If we gets £2,636 per household, which is massively more identify the families that we want to deal with through than my constituency in Fenland gets. If we are trying this programme, then I am guessing that we don’t to understand the pressure on the households within actually have the capacity in all of your organisations the programme it is important to understand the to do it at the moment. financial position and get a true picture. I am not sure In terms of bidding for resources, the whole cost- that 53% leaner is a true picture. benefit equation is right at the heart of what we are Colette O'Brien: What I meant was that in the first doing here. The whole point of this programme is we three years of budget reductions we had to save £172 believe that investing in it will ultimately save money million. In the next three years it is £156 million. By for the taxpayer. Are you tracking benefits of what 2017 that will be 53% less as a council than we had you are doing sufficiently in financial terms, so that six years previously. I was saying that we are not able when it comes to bidding for resources you have a to budget money up front for the payment by results good story about the payback of the interventions you figure. We wait for that to come in in arrears. have been making? Maybe it is a question for both of you. Q49 Chair: I think what would be fairer is if you Colette O'Brien: We are, particularly around the take Stephen’s perfectly legitimate questions and do family intervention programme, because we were us a note. I think it is a bit unfair to expect you as already doing that to begin with. I am not sure so children’s services director to be completely on top of much whether children’s services will see a cost- the budget. benefit necessarily. Colette O'Brien: Sure. Stephen Barclay: With respect, Chair, she was saying Q43 Chair: Who’s the “we”? that was putting pressure on. You can’t have it both Ian Swales: That is exactly my point. The benefit is ways. felt in hospitals, in prisons. Have you got a baseline against which you are measuring your work, because Q50 Chair: Let’s get a note. I think it is a fair it is much easier to get resources if you can show a question but if you can get your authority to provide business case for getting them? a note, that would be helpful. David, I am going to ask Colette O'Brien: It is. I think that is something we you from your rather wider national voluntary sector need to develop better than we have for children’s perspective the more challenging question: what needs services. to improve and change and where are the weaknesses? I know that is a specific one, but it is a time constraint. Q44 Chair: Are you doing it? Are you managing to David Holmes: Good afternoon. I am David Holmes, track it? chief executive of Family Action. We are an England- Jim Hopkinson: We are developing with CLG a cost- wide voluntary organisation, particularly known for Thisbenefit calculatoris an tool andembargoed we do hope that we will be advanceour range of family copy. support work. We are currently in a position to demonstrate outcomes in the near providing troubled families schemes in five different future. It does take some time to developfor the embargo tool. local authorities. details So, I guess what I bring is an Not to be published inoverview any of troubled form families in a range of different Q45 Chair: I want to go to David quickly. I wanted areas. to ask both of you whether you work with the DWP I would say to begin with that I welcome the troubled programmebefore as well. embargo time.families programme. See Iattached think it is very important Press to Colette O'Brien: Not very closely, no. have investment in family support and in trying to Jim Hopkinson: Through our Jobcentre Plus divert spend on those families to helping them to live colleagues we do,notice but not enormously. happier and better lives. In my experience and that of my workers, the families we work with are invariably Q46 Stephen Barclay: Miss O’Brien, you said that complex. They have a range of support needs. We can part of the pressure was that the council would have make some progress on the factors that are measured to be 53% leaner. Is that excluding the increase in under the programme: antisocial behaviour, school reserves and the uncollected council tax? attendance, youth offending and return to work. Colette O'Brien: Our reserve is primarily against our Certainly through the schemes we operate we have capital programme. We have 12 new schools that we seen good progress, particularly in school attendance are building, so I understand our reserve is primarily and reducing antisocial behaviour. There has been against that. much less progress on getting people back into work. I am not sure that captures the totality of what we see Q47 Stephen Barclay: But you are increasing in these families. I see families where domestic reserves. violence is prevalent. I was talking to one of my Ev 8 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
managers this morning and in more than 50% of her I welcome the fact that the troubled families scheme cases there is domestic violence. In a majority of the will continue, and I welcome the proposal to broaden families there are real issues with parenting and also it out to reach more vulnerable families. I hope that anxiety or depression or other mental health issues, in the future we will see more of a focus on the issues with families feeling they have just failed and are that I see so much through my projects—mental often in despair. health, domestic violence and parenting capacity. What is good about the troubled families initiative is Those are the things that are real to my families. that it promotes the whole family approach. I absolutely agree with the need for a dedicated, trusted Q53 Ian Swales: Can I ask a clarification question? family support worker to go in, work intensively with In my area, families in these programmes often have the family, build trust and make direct improvements alcohol and other substance abuse problems. Do you to the family’s life quickly. It can be fixing the boiler measure that dimension as well? or just winning trust, because those people will have David Holmes: Certainly, alcohol and substance seen so many professionals over the years, and over a misuse is an issue, although domestic violence and period of time they can make a change. I also see parenting capacity are issues for a larger number of tremendous variation in how the troubled families families. We try to get as broad a picture as we can scheme is commissioned. In one of the schemes, we of the family across as many dimensions as possible, are commissioned for a three-month intervention. It is because then we can show the progress that has been very difficult to turn families around in three months. made. Ultimately, when we look at the success or not of the programme, we do better if we look across the Q51 Chair: Why is that? piece, rather than at fixed outcomes. David Holmes: The commissioners work with families for three months and see the progress they Q54 Mr Jackson: Do you have a didactic approach make. It may take six months. to the way you deal with families? It is all very well to say, “These are the problems, and we are measuring Q52 Mr Bacon: Is “the commissioner” a local how we are getting on”, but you must give those authority? families a framework to teach them. I understand that David Holmes: Yes. In another area, we are for generations they have not had a moral, social, commissioned for up to 12 months. We need familial framework that will enable them to make flexibility in the programme so we can work with rational, good choices for their families. Are you families for as long as they need to make a real, saying that that is an implicit assumption in the positive change. That is not to say that organisations scheme? Are you saying, “Look, this is what you such as mine should be commissioned for years and should be doing”? I guess what I am asking is, are you years to work with a family and not achieve change; partially judgmental when you help those families? If however, we should make sure we are there for the you just sit around on a bean bag, saying, “Well, it’s families for as long as they need us so we can make going badly; it’s not working out,” with all due respect the changes that will transform their lives. that will not get the job done; that will not cut the When we think about the future of troubled families, mustard. we need to think about what happens when a family David Holmes: Families need really good and exits the programme. What do they step down to? I effective support. The way in which a family support have seen some real innovations. For example, in one worker will work with a family—if they are any area there is a community mentoring scheme, which good—is to go in, build trust and start giving their gives families somewhere to go, and there are family strategies for moving on. Thiscommunity is approaches an embargoed to keep up the progress that advanceI talked before about copy. the family star, which looked at has been made. In terms of the name “troubled parenting capacity. We do that with our families and families”, I do not call any of myfor troubled embargo families they love it. Theydetails will stick it on the fridge, because schemesNot “troubled to families”.be published I call them “family inthey canany see where form they are starting from and where focus”, “think families”, “building successful they are going. It gives them a framework to move families”, “families first” or “families working on. It is not patronising. Is it didactic? Well, if it is, it together”,before but not “troubled families”.embargo time.is in the most See supportive attached way. But it is giving Press people Something we do in my organisation—this relates to the tools to become better parents, to live happier lives the question I was asked earlier about tracking the and have less misery, which is good. benefits—is to measurenotice the journey. We don’t just focus on whether we can achieve the specific Q55 Mr Jackson: That was a helpful answer. How outcomes. For example, we sit down at the beginning much sharing is there of the experience of the most with all our families to work out where they are in successful schemes across the country? Is anyone terms of parenting. We use a parenting effectiveness collating and co-ordinating that data to help others? tool called the family star to work out where they are David Holmes: I know there is an ongoing evaluation in terms of setting routines and boundaries for their of the programme and also a range of conferences and children, keeping them safe and making sure they eat learning opportunities for different programmes. I well. While we work with them we measure how far suppose where I have found particular benefit is in they are making progress. At the end of the running a number of different schemes within the intervention, whatever has happened in relation to the same organisation, because then we can benchmark payment-by-results outcomes, we can also see how internally what we are doing and learn from one the family’s parenting has moved on. another. But I think the opportunity to understand the Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 9
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
range of different things that have been shown to work life happens, doesn’t it?—they will be able to interpret through this programme is hugely valuable and rich what is happening for the family. We find, often, it is material that we must use as the programme continues not the intervention but preparing a family. Say there and expands. is a mental health appointment, or a doctor’s appointment. Okay, go with the family. Make sure that Q56 Justin Tomlinson: Two quick points. You have they go to it. Talk to them about the conclusion, got the experience of engaging across a number of whatever it was, and make sure that any treatment is local authorities, so you see things approached in put into effect. It is about that central co-ordination, different ways. What are the biggest barriers to and it is the fact that somebody is on your side and engagement? Obviously, you have got to work with will be there that gives people the confidence to multiple agencies and we have got two very proactive progress and move on. local authorities here. David Holmes: We have still—this is an old chestnut Q59 Meg Hillier: Welcome. It is good to have a for anyone working in health or social care, or Hackney-based organisation here. A few years ago, I children’s services—an issue with data sharing was talking a lot to schools in my constituency. Rather between agencies. We see a variety of practice there. than buying in the family support that someone like The choice of the key worker is vital, because you you would provide, they found it was cheaper to have to have somebody who has the personality and provide support through a member of staff in the brilliance at building relationships with families and family support unit. Although you are the pioneering other agencies to be able to cut through whatever red project, at some point someone will look at the unit tape or barriers there may be to effect positive change, cost of everything you provide. That will be part of so the interpersonal skills of these workers are the evaluation of value for money. What is the absolutely critical. difference between what you provide and the cut-price But I also think there is momentum behind the version? Is there any point where what you do per programme and that there is an understanding that hour for the person you have just described to Mr intensive family support matters. It is then how you Tomlinson could be cheaper? Or is there only one way situate that within a much broader approach to family of doing it? support that goes across the spectrum of need and David Holmes: I don’t think there is only one way of doesn’t just focus on the areas and families who need doing it. You have to cut your cloth according to the most intensive support. where you are working and the problem you are trying to solve. I think there is a reality that if you have Q57 Justin Tomlinson: This is a long-term people working in these very intensive roles with programme with long-term results. How much of a families, having them as part of a team, having the challenge is it to ensure that you get enough buy-in? support that that team provides, and having the In the short term, it is resource-heavy on financial cost opportunity to discuss their cases and learn from one and staff time—like you said, it is not simply a three- another is often better than just having somebody in month programme in which everything is fine and the an isolated role. There is also something about benefits filter through immediately. Considering that thinking hard about where people are located. You local authorities have annual financial pressures and might have somebody in a school, but perhaps the staff changes, how much of a challenge is it to keep family have had a really bad experience of education everyone looking at the long term? themselves. Maybe they don’t want to go into a David Holmes: I would say it is incumbent, school. There is a need for flexible thinking there. particularly on the voluntary organisation here, to help Also the idea of schools investing in family support with that process, because we can show, through and seeing themselves as having a responsibility for Thisreally good is data an collection, embargoed the difference that we are advancethat is absolutely right. copy. Then, I think, you just try to making over time. We can help to makefor the embargo case for work out the details service model that will have the most whyNot local investment to be should bepublished put in family support. inimpact any on families. form I would not just lay this at the door of local government; it is a shared mission to help these Q60 Stephen Barclay: You have identified domestic families andbefore reduce costs much embargo further down the line, time.violence as aSee key issue. attached To what extent do you alwaysPress because we have all seen the intergenerational cycles encourage prosecution or to what extent—you talked of problems that just go on and on. about support—would you not encourage notice prosecution? Q58 Justin Tomlinson: These families all have their David Holmes: It will always depend on the unique challenges, so every single programme has to individual circumstances of cases. Is this something be individually tailored for them. One of the biggest that is happening now? Has it happened further back challenges with having so many different agencies is in somebody’s life? Is it a repeating pattern, such as that so many different people can play a part in where a woman has a history of violent partners? It turning that family around, but obviously having so depends on the individual case, but in working with many people means turnover in those staff. How do domestic violence we would always want to address you keep a consistent approach when someone who that, if that is the absolute root of what is happening might have understood the challenge moves on? in that family. Unless you address the domestic David Holmes: Through that key link person and violence, how will anybody move on? How will you really effective co-ordination. If you have the right get into work? How will your anxiety and depression person co-ordinating support, then if things change— reduce? How will your children’s problems change? Ev 10 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
It is core to understanding exactly what is going on to think through that to help this family to move on. and then making sure that the woman, the man, and Is it about trying to address the poverty, is it about the rest of the family have the tools they need to benefits maximisation, is it about, as I said before, address it and move on. If that means getting the housing? It is about what you have to do to make real perpetrator out of the house, then that is the right thing and lasting progress. to do. Q63 Chair: Do you interact with the DWP Q61 Mr Jackson: I was just going to say that. The programme? objectives could be mutually exclusive. Is the David Holmes: No. objective always to keep the family together through thick and thin? That seems to run counter to what Q64 Stephen Barclay: Do you interact with the should happen when a woman—it is usually women— police, in terms of them wearing head cams to is in danger of violence from her partner. facilitate them prosecuting when victims of domestic David Holmes: The objectives are to take a long, hard violence won’t prosecute? look at what is happening in the family and sort the David Holmes: We certainly have good working family’s problems out. That will be whatever is relationships with the police. That is really important. necessary to help that family to move on. It is not about sticking plasters. It is about real, long-term, Q65 Stephen Barclay: When the police are called to transformative change, but that may be over such a a domestic violence incident, do you find that wide range of areas, not just very specific outcomes. increasingly they are wearing head cameras, so that they can gather the evidence? An issue that Q62 Mr Jackson: To move the family around as magistrates have raised with me has been that victims well. One of the experiences I picked up on was ex- of domestic violence will often not prosecute. offenders coming out. If they come back into the same David Holmes: I could ask my co-ordinators that neighbourhood with the same drug dealers, and the question and get back to you. same criminal fraternity, they will get back on the conveyor belt. My local constabulary has taken to Q66 Chair: Thanks very much indeed to all of you. moving people to different counties to break the cycle. We were a bit longer than I thought we would be, David Holmes: I agree, but this is where you have to but it was very useful and very helpful, so thank you have a broader perspective, because so many of the very much. families we work with are living in poverty. You have
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Louise Casey, Director General, Troubled Families, Department for Communities and Local Government, Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions and Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, and Head of the Home Civil Service, gave evidence.
Q67 Chair: Welcome. Sorry we kept you waiting. on this—that none of them interacted with the DWP This is the first time for you, Louise, so welcome. programme. Mr Bacon: You have been before, haven’t you? Sir Bob Kerslake: Shall I kick off, Chair, and then ThisChair: Notis with an us. embargoed advancecolleagues can join me?copy. When we started working on Louise Casey: Not with this group, but I have been the troubled families programme, work had already before the PAC in previous lives. for embargogot to quite adetails point in the DWP ESF initiatives. One MrNot Bacon: Thatto is be what Ipublished meant. I remember you inwas ahead any of the otherform in its development, to the point from the rough sleepers initiative. that there was quite well progressed work on the Louise Casey: Yes. tendering process and so on. The judgment came Mr Bacon:beforeIt might have beenembargo a few years ago, but time.when we wereSee making attached a decision about going Press with you’re not new to the Committee. the troubled families programme: do you stop one, do Louise Casey: Stillnotice nervous, though. you hold off on the other, or do you let both proceed and then focus on how you join them up as effectively Q68 Chair: Let me start by saying that around the as you possibly can? On balance, the desire to proceed Committee table there is general support for the aims apace and with scale made it the right judgment to of both programmes. Our job is to look at whether proceed with the two schemes and make sure they they are cost-effective. We recognise that we are joined up. coming in halfway through, so the judgments will be direction of travel, rather than absolute judgment on If you look at the story, quite a lot has been done to where you are. That is the context in which we are make sure that happens, most particularly the 152 staff trying to interrogate: where we are at the moment. who have been put into local authorities from— I suppose the issue that hits you when you read the NAO Report is: why on earth do we have two separate Q69 Chair: None of whom knew about DWP or programmes trying to do the same thing? I just don’t worked with DWP. I can’t see the join-up. It didn’t get it. It was interesting—Robert will want to come in feel joined up to me. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 11
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Sir Bob Kerslake: What they would say is that those Sir Bob Kerslake: No, it is the same families. Just to particular people’s connection with the DWP make a point on that, the work that has been done in programme, and from my experience, the staff DWP to identify on their systems families who are in seconded in, have been very positively received, and the troubled families group has been quite strong.1 Jim, sitting on my right, made that point. They have been in the teams for a year now, and their presence Q75 Chair: Then why don’t local authorities know is really being felt. about them? Sir Bob Kerslake: Something like 51,000 of those Q70 Chair: I will give Robert a chance to come in who have been identified and been worked with are on this, but he said he used Jobcentre Plus people, on the DWP system, so I am not going to suggest that but when I said, “Do you interact with the ESF/DWP you could not do more to align the systems and work programme?” he said no. together, but as Robert has said, a lot has been done Sir Bob Kerslake: What he did say, though, was that to get as much joined up as we possibly can. The the connection between the two Departments was problem with what you are suggesting is that, in a strong and that the secondments had been very sense, we would have had to halt the programme that effective. DWP had under way, or alternatively delay the Robert Devereux: It depends on which staff we are programme for troubled families. Neither would have talking about, though. The thing that we did together been a good outcome. Having got going on both in March last year was put Jobcentre Plus people into programmes and learned a lot along the way—that local authorities; we have put 150 of these people, would be the honest answer—we do now have quite who are called troubled families employment a lot of connection, both in terms of data between the advisers, into local authorities. It has been two systems and of practical working on the ground. extraordinarily well received in two directions— Q76 Chris Heaton-Harris: Actually, I think you are Q71 Fiona Mactaggart: Any additional body in a working together, and I have an example of it in my local authority is usually well received, as we heard constituency, and not a deliberate one—well, it is deliberate, but not for this. The Jobcentre Plus has in relation to the pain of the cuts in Liverpool, frankly. moved into local council offices and it is a one-stop Robert Devereux: I have had the pain of cuts in shop. Daventry district, God bless them, are at the Jobcentre Plus, too. These 150 have gone in, and my forefront, and the regional Jobcentre manager is perception of these two programmes—the question driving as many of these projects forward as he you started with—is that having started, what we have possibly can, which is very good news. But the now worked out is a pretty effective way of working problem in Northamptonshire has been agreeing on together. who is a troubled family. Once they have agreed it is quite easy—well, perhaps not quite easy, but the Q72 Chair: It does not feel like it when you read that movement has been there, and it has been very joined Report. Are you working with the same families? Are up, and it seems to be working, slowly but surely. The you working with different families? trouble with identification surprised me. Why is that? Robert Devereux: With respect, there is one Louise Casey: I do not think that is to do with the paragraph about the stuff that we have done since European Social Fund programme. What happened in March 2013, and quite a lot about the stuff that set it Northamptonshire is that they are one of the areas up, so the learning in this is how you bring the two that, in my view, were not really used to working with together, because two different things are going on this particular cohort of families, and they started here. quite slowly in terms of trying to grip what they This is an embargoed advancethought was going on.copy. Q73 Chair: But we are halfwayfor through embargo the As you heard details from previous witnesses, you can get programme,Not whichto isbe why it ispublished a good time to look at invery caughtany up in form a kind of “data approach” to this on it from the perspective of whether it is value for a significant scale. Local authorities that had a track money. All the way through, I could not work out record in running family intervention from 2005–06— whether youbefore were defining theembargo same families. Is there time.which some See of you aroundattached the table have—knew Press duplication? I just could not get any feel for why we where they were at, knew the type of families they are running two programmes. With the greatest were going for and knew how to do it, through things respect, Sir Bob,notice you have an ESF application in— like community safety partnerships, housing, and you want the money, I get that—and you just make children’s services, as with Colette and others. Some sure that you design it so that it is part of an integrated started slowly, particularly where you have a county whole, rather than running two separate programmes and then districts, so you are also a different type of with different outcomes. Your outcome under ESF is authority. It is no secret that Northamptonshire has 22% in work, and Louise’s is rather different—kids been one of the areas I have been concerned about. I back at school and so on. am much happier with the position that they are now Sir Bob Kerslake: In terms of the point about whether in, but they started slowly. In fairness to them, they working together is actually happening, I have seen are using it as a way to think about how they examples, and it really is happening in a practical way. restructure their services much more fundamentally. 1 Witness note: The ESF Families provision has a broader Q74 Chair: Is it the same families, or are you eligibility than the Troubled Families programme, there is choosing different families? some overlap but they are not always the same families. Ev 12 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
People like me have to get the balance right in that psychometric testing, let alone one of my families. scenario. Can I work with you to change it?” Those are the sorts The troubled families programme is about trying to of things that will make a huge difference, because it get local areas to see how they can restructure is bringing our families, who are miles away from the services, so that what you heard about earlier—10, 15, employment market, and people like employers closer. 20 agencies circling these families and not really They are not the easy end. They are not creaming getting any real change in them—does not continue. off the top. They are people who haven’t worked for At the same time, I need to make sure that they are generations. Of course the figures are low on getting keeping the momentum up on actually helping them in jobs, and for a sustained period of time, but individual families and getting through the numbers. getting one of these families into a job for three or six In your constituencies, which I have visited and I have months can create monumental change in that family. colleagues who are in close contact with them, my It has been painful, but it is worth it. sense is that the data-sharing issue went a bit beyond the issue around DWP. Q79 Mr Bacon: Can I ask about one thing you just Sir Bob Kerslake: One important point to add is that said about data sharing? You call it a “big win”; the in my experience the troubled families programme is previous witnesses said it was an issue that there was one of the most joined-up programmes across still variable practice. You guys, between you, are the Government. We have six Departments involved, and Government. You are the people who ought to be able on the ground we are seeing a high level of joining to decide and, if necessary, send a little statutory up between partnerships. However, the level of instrument down the corridor in this place—somebody development of partnership varies from area to area. will deal with it in 20 minutes; it happens all the Some have had to work much harder at getting to a time—to solve these problems. Why is it that people shared understanding of the issues before they could are so recalcitrant? I had a meeting with the move on. In my view, that is a good thing, because Information Commissioner about something else, and it has forced them to think about the issue from a I said to him, “Do you get annoyed when you hear common perspective. the phrase ‘data protection’?” He said, “Yes, I do. I get particularly annoyed when they say it to me. I feel Q77 Chair: Louise, do you oversee the people who like saying, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’” This is an get funded through the DWP programme? area that has been a perennial problem and it is, by Louise Casey: Yes. definition, “the authorities” who have the power to sort it out. Why does it continue? Why does it persist? Q78 Chair: So you oversee all these private That is probably for Sir Bob to answer, but it may be contractors? for all of you. Louise Casey: No, I don’t oversee the European Sir Bob Kerslake: I will kick off. The first point to Social Fund programme. That is done out of DWP make is that we have already made, as Louise said, central, but obviously I am aware of the setting-up of some quite significant advances on data sharing. To this programme and how it has worked. It is one part be honest, often the barrier to data sharing is not legal of a much wider programme. My sense is that DWP at all; it is cultural. It is history; it is practice. One of was heading down this route because of the European the big things that the programme has sought to do Social Fund. It had criteria that it needed to meet and is test, really, which of these issues—these so-called it pressed ahead. We meanwhile did a much bigger reasons why you cannot share data—are just down to programme. The ambition of the programme is huge. culture and practice, and which are down to people It is 120,000 families and £458 million, and we are being inhibited by statutory regulation. A lot has been Thisgoing for is very an significant embargoed changes in each and every advancedone to move it on. copy. A very practical example— one of those families; work is just one element of that. I know what you are saying, and I understandfor embargo what the Q80 Ian Swales: detailsIn terms of protection, is it the NAONot Report said,to and be we have published rubbed along trying to incase that—any form make this right. Where we got to a year ago is, to be Sir Bob Kerslake: To be honest, all of those things go honest, an extraordinarily significant moment in on in this area. The evidence in the troubled families public services.before We started embargo out with data sharing, time.programme See is that quite attached a lot has been achieved Press to which we managed to get off DWP really early on. break down those barriers in joint cause. You are left Iain Duncan Smith agreed—a historic moment in my then with some issues that genuinely require legal career in working innotice these services—that we would be change, and you will know that there are some able to get DWP data on benefits, which none of us thoughts to see what might be done on that. has had in all the time I have been working. That was Robert Devereux: We have made two regulatory a great win. A year later, we managed to get human changes. The first enabled me to send data to local beings out of Jobcentre Plus, into troubled families authorities about the nature of benefit receipts, which teams, or whatever they are called locally. Because of is one of the criteria for Louise’s programme. The that, we now have 51,000 individuals marked by second one enabled them to tell me who is on their DWP as being from my families. That is huge step troubled families programme, which is how I got the forward. So, no, not perfect, but we are now in a better 50,000 names on the machine. place, and it is actually quite exciting, in terms of how I think it is true that if you want, as a previous witness public services work with each other. said, not to have 10 people turning up on someone’s It is great for me to meet, in Bristol, the woman who doorstep, you have to have multi-agency work back went to Asda and said, “I couldn’t get through your in the office. The data protection rules mean that there Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 13
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
are data controllers right across local authorities Robert Devereux: Because we’ve redistributed to looking after the data on this thing or that thing. One other good things. of the things we have provided to local authorities is a guidance document on how data protection works Q87 Guto Bebb: The ESF funding? and who you have to go to in your local authority to Robert Devereux: Yes. cut through some of this stuff, because we have opened up the gateways that are necessary to pass Q88 Chair: Reading between the lines, the ESF between the Department for Work and Pensions and money is being used to subsidise the Work local authorities. As for what local authorities then do programme, isn’t it, Robert? internally to make sure they all understand what you Robert Devereux: No. can share if you are in, say, the children’s unit, the Chair: It is, because you are putting outcomes from debt unit or the housing unit, that is stuff where some the Work programme into the— people are better than others, but we have tried as much as possible to cut through that. Q89 Guto Bebb: It shouldn’t be as simple as that— which is why I’m asking the question. Q81 Chair: If you were all under one programme, Robert Devereux: Of the money that we were the problem would disappear. allocated, something in the order of £100 million has Robert Devereux: But that would not fix local gone back into people who have returned from the authorities. Work programme, not into the Work programme, and we have put further money into NEETs—another £40 Q82 Guto Bebb: The Chair has just mentioned that million—to help with offenders and some other pilots. there should be one programme rather than two, but We have not looked at the £200 million and said, Louise Casey mentioned in passing that the DWP “Let’s send that back to Europe”; we have got on and programme was created because it was going after used it sensibly. ESF funding. To what extent did the fact that ESF funding is part of the funding of your programme Q90 Fiona Mactaggart: We have known through mean that you felt inclined to go down the route of research and experience over the years, and we heard having two rather than one? Was it a reaction to the it from the previous panel, that the critical thing with funding stream, rather than people’s actual needs? this group of families is joined-up working, instead of Robert Devereux: It is true that it is funded out of the the parcelled out bits of working that we have. We ESF, and the ESF has a particular time frame, so we have to recommend how this programme could needed to know what to do with it. The principal become better value for money. It seems clear to me reason why the Department set off down this route that, according to the NAO’s Report at paragraph 12, is because the Prime Minister decided we should do there has been poor integration of the programmes. At something with those 120,000 and—this is my paragraph 2.29, if you just look at the weeks in department—we got on and did something about it. between decisions, your heart breaks a bit, because you would not have wanted it to be like that—you Q83 Guto Bebb: I will rephrase the question. If it would not have wanted a decision in June by the was not for ESF funding, would there have been one DWP, then a decision in October by the DCLG and in programme or two? November by the other Department, and so on, so that they are running side by side and are not integrated. I Robert Devereux: I do not think that the existence want to know what you have done to join the of the ESF programme is the thing that creates new programmes up from here on—that is question No. 1. programmes, but the need to take action on people Question No. 2 is, knowing that we need not just local Thiswho need is further an support. embargoed advance copy. government and people who work in Work and for embargoPensions, but details also the police, the health authority and Q84Not Chair: Butto one be of you ispublished looking at 2015 on, as inso on, whatany are we form doing to get data from those bodies I understand it, and one of you is not. to help this work? Robert Devereux: Because we have learnt—because Sir Bob Kerslake: I shall deal with the first question at the pointbefore at which we were embargo doing all of this, we time.and Louise canSee deal with attached the second one. You Press never had started ahead of the process. start from a perfect point, when you do this— Sir Bob Kerslake: For me, as influential was the stage Fiona Mactaggart: But we are trying to guide you reached in the programme.notice Things like the tendering about how to improve in future. process and the expectations of potential providers Sir Bob Kerslake: I think it is important to make that were as important as the issue of ESF. point, because the alternative was not to have done something on troubled families. We talked earlier Q85 Guto Bebb: Just quickly on the issue of ESF, in about the ways in which we have looked to join it up view of the fact that there is an underperformance on better. There have been adjustments to the way in the programme—obviously it is payment by results, which the programme works within DWP, to align the so you are not spending the money—how much of the two programmes better. There has also been the ESF element of the budgets will have to be handed sharing of data that we talked about, so that we can back? ensure that we have data in both directions about how Robert Devereux: None. things are going. There have been the secondments, which we spoke about earlier, of staff into the local Q86 Guto Bebb: How can you explain that then? authority teams. Those are three very practical ways Ev 14 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
in which joining up or alignment has happened within health data safely and well around a particularly the context of two programmes. vulnerable cohort of families without scaring the Louise Casey: Quickly, on continuation of the Work horses. programme, on the work side we absolutely want to keep these Jobcentre Plus staff based in the troubled Q92 Mr Bacon: You will recognise this quote: “We families teams post-2015, because the fact that we need to find out what is happening in relation to all of have got 51,000 markers—to use your language, the data. I don’t think that is about someone’s civil Robert—is brilliant. We have done a join-up. We rights. I think it’s about their right to get help and the know—I know—on a case-by-case basis that there are system’s right to challenge them to take it.” You are 51,000 of my 120,000 where something is joining up saying that unless you have all of that, the system locally. The data tell me that. That is very powerful, cannot operate effectively, or not as effectively as it and I think that that is down to the Jobcentre Plus should. The remit of this Committee is foursquare secondees, so I will want that to continue no matter effectiveness. what happens with ESF. Louise Casey: Are you quoting me, just so I know? The thing that they underplayed, when they were That’s me, is it? talking to you, is their tremendous achievement in Mr Bacon: Yes. pulling together. I sat in one of those meetings in Louise Casey: Well, I was right. Joking aside, what is Leeds that Jim talked about. A deputy head teacher, really frustrating for families is when they have to tell the woman in charge of behaviour in the school, seven different agencies that the same incident has turned up, alongside someone from a children’s centre occurred in their lives, because the children’s centre, and the police officer, and they talked about the list of the health visitor, the police officer and somebody else people who they had generated data for—which came are not prepared to share that data. That is happening from the police, health and other areas, particularly less and less when it comes to the troubled families driven by the local authority. Within that, they talked programme, partly because it is of its moment— about the type of cases that they thought that they people know that that is crazy. It is crazy for the wanted to get to first and about how they would go families and it is crazy for the system. Of course I about doing it. think that families need to have a right to make sure Coming back to what you asked us, Mr Bacon, on that that data is shared effectively, and the system data sharing as a national issue, I would say yes, it is needs to be persuaded, cajoled and, if necessary, told an issue. Some of it is definitely cultural, but there is to do it. a sense that people do not feel they have permission to share data on a national basis. When I am out and Q93 Fiona Mactaggart: I think you are telling us about around the country, I tell them, “Damn the that in this face-to-face networking of a local area, culture and get on with it!” The thing is, they sit there is beginning to be a willingness to share data. I behind their desks thinking, “Someone back at the wonder whether the people who aren’t turning up— centre is going to say that we shouldn’t be sharing sometimes the police, sometimes the NHS—are more this data.” What we are looking for as we go into an reserved about it. We have to come up with some expanded programme is permissive legislation, which recommendations that say how this could work better says that it is okay for you to share this data. As long and be more cost effective. I think, just like Mr Bacon, as I have been in this business—it is now about 30 that the key to it working better and being more cost years—people have stood behind the words “data effective is finding ways of sharing that work. One of sharing” in the same way that they stand behind the problems in this programme that we have “health and safety”. They are thrown at you identified is that having two programmes side by side Thisconstantly. is an embargoed advancewasn’t the greatest waycopy. to start. We have heard that you have done your best to overcome that, and you Q91 Mr Bacon: That was my point—thefor embargo culture are being quite details Pollyanna-ish about it, which is very hasn’tNot changed. to be published innice. Butany from listening form to you, I think that you agree Louise Casey: It is changing in the Troubled Families with me that there is a problem with NHS data and a programme, partly because the way we have set this problem with police data. Arguably, one of the programmebefore up means that embargo people have to get time.recommendations See that weattached ought to be making Press is that information from education and they have to get there should be some kind of national drive to ensure information on youth crime. They are all desperate to that, locally, it is not only the two Departments that share what is happeningnotice on drugs, alcohol, mental have learnt through this process that are doing it, but health and particularly domestic violence, and of that the other people are, too—the ones who say, course they want to look at what is happening with “Oh, no.” children at risk, children in need and children on child Louise Casey: That is completely right. We need a protection plans. That is one of the biggest uses of sense of giving permission—a permissive sense of their discretionary filter. It is in all of their interests to giving permission that that is an okay thing to do. It share that data on a case-by-case and local authority goes right across the system. It is not just about health by local authority basis. I think that out there, people or the DWP: it is within local authorities. I have some want this and it is happening. DWP is not the issue. local authorities that do not share data between It is this stuff. different parts of their thing, because they will be As we go into the future, I am slightly worried about hiding behind something that says, “We’re not really the need to sort out with the police and, in particular, allowed to do it.” My view is that the troubled the health sector how we are going to be able to share families programme is right out there. We are trying Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 15
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
to push forward and change things on a family-by- others. So they are less likely to go off the radar as family basis. We look around, and we think, “Blimey! they move. This is getting in the way. We need to do something Some of the stuff which we have done through the about it.” This is one of the areas where we are troubled families programme is to work incredibly pushing colleagues within Whitehall to say that we hard on pulling local authorities and their partners might need something more on data sharing, and that together. Last year, we did something like 500 to 600 might include something in a Bill that comes out of people around the country at least twice a year, where this House that says, “Get on with it.” we have gone out and talked to them about issues like how to identify the families early on and how to make Q94 Fiona Mactaggart: So, Sir Bob, what are you that easy for themselves. But we have also put people doing? in a room together regionally. Some of them have not Sir Bob Kerslake: The key thing is what Louise said. met before, but it is quite a powerful way of sharing First of all, we need to find out on the ground what what they are doing and why they are doing it. barriers people are experiencing. Louise and I visited Amyas Morse: I just want to put a modest proposal to one of the teams, and one of our first questions was, you based on Miss Casey’s remarks. What has “What is getting in the way of you doing even better happened so far has been in the nature of pathfinders than you are doing?” The start of it is getting a very to a degree. It has turned out a bit differently to what precise sense of where the true barriers are in relation you thought and it is good that you reacted positively to data sharing—these teams know what the to that. But effectively, looking at the original targets problems are. and measures that you set, which are not being fully The second thing is to understand how much of that achieved, instead of spending a lot of time talking is a problem of culture and how much is a problem of about that, perhaps we should say, “Well, when are confidence—they could do it but they fear that they you going to put in some measures now that you are can’t. What is left then is a genuine legal and seeing this reconfigure. It is going to become a single regulatory barrier that we need to overcome. So, this departmental programme and have a number of is about specifics and we have more work to do ahead different features. We are going to need to understand of the next programme in order to say where we still what the value for money is. Is there some intent to have genuine barriers that central Government could put some planning parameters in place?” help to overcome. But I would like to start from the In effect, is this a restart or a re-basing of how we practical experience of the teams on the ground, rather should be looking at results from the programme, than we invent it from up here. rather than saying, “Let’s look at what was originally Robert Devereux: I would be in favour of thought of.”? Some of these local authorities had to recommending more. Could we be slightly careful? I take much longer to get data together; to be able to have not sent the entire benefit data for every local approach the issue. They have told us that. Do you really feel that you can perform according to the authority to the local authority just in case one of them original parameters? It is going to mean an awful lot is a troubled family. I would rather not have my health of performance in the last two years of this records sent across to the local authority just in case I programme, isn’t it? am a troubled family. So, if you want to open the Louise Casey: Yes, is the answer. gateway, you have to decide who is on point to say, Amyas Morse: Yes what? I am trying to be helpful. “I have identified Mr Devereux as a troubled family Louise Casey: Yes, we will deliver and yes, we will for some reason and now, police, health, have you got stick to why we set this up in the first place. This is a anything to declare?” Otherwise you will keep families programme that is attempting to change the bumping into data control issues. The good people lives of families very fundamentally. It is not a work Thiswho worry is about an data embargoed control are doing it for good advance copy. programme; it is a families programme. We are sitting reasons. for embargoon 92,000 familiesdetails out of the 120,000 that local Not to be published inauthorities any have theform names and addresses of. We know Q95 Chair: A lot of these troubled families with who those families are and have been working with challenges move across local authority boundaries, 62,000 of them. And, of course, we have already that is onebefore of the features. Whatembargo about that and how time.turned around—to See use attached the lingo—22,000 of Press those are you making that work? families. The way we have structured the Louise Casey: We have identified 92,000 families. programme—your colleagues know this—is that we They have addressesnotice attached to them. They will went for 35% of the 120,000 in year 1 and we have move, but they share that information very quickly. I gone for 50% in year 2, which we are in at the was talking to Colette outside about the movement moment. We will manage the risk of what you are between Knowsley, Sefton and Liverpool. Basically, talking about, going for 15% in year 3, where also the what you rely on—particularly in the case of a incentive on local authorities to deliver the results is troubled family—is the fact that we are more likely to much greater, because they get a small amount of know who they are and where they are going than all attachment money—I call it up-front incentive the other families out there that you might also worry money—which Colette said was useful and they get about. So, in relation to troubled families, the local the balance in results. authorities are very wise to this and very clear. They It would have been easier for them if we had had a know, because the level of contact with those families cumulative programme that said, “Look, you can start is greater, and we can track them through various small and get bigger.” But it was right for us to say, mechanisms to do with the police, education and “Be bolder about how you go about doing this,” so Ev 16 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
we were bold in our intentions, asking them to come The reason why we put in payments for progress in at 35% in year 1, and they are now at 50%. The measures is precisely what the gentleman said: if the progress so far on the troubled families programme— issue for a family is sorting out domestic violence, in my view, down to local authorities and their then we had better make sure that we try to sort out partners—is impressive. I know that you are saying domestic violence before we do something else. We that we are underperforming by, I think, 13% and have not pitched this programme, despite the way it now 9%— has been constructed, as purely about employment; Amyas Morse: I am not saying it is unimpressive; I this is an employability and employment programme am just saying that what you said you would do is not and we are trying to move people towards being done. That is not a bad thing, but don’t you employment. We have consciously chosen to say, need to think about that and say, “Well, are we “Tell us what sorts of interventions you think would measuring the right things?”? move people closer to the labour market and, in due Louise Casey: What I said we would do is turn around course, into the labour market, and we are happy to the lives of 120,000 families by May 2015 and we pay for you to do some of that preparatory work.” intend to do that. That is what the progress measures are. In a world in which my CLG colleagues have simply Q96 Chair: Actually, I think the issue is stronger on gone for attachment fees, where you get some cash the DWP programme, because, as I read it—correct for attaching, we have said, “Actually, there is no me if I am wrong—you are constantly moving the attachment in this—we will pay you for doing goalposts to use the money. I do not mind about that, something.” Whatever view you take of the if it is using up the ESF money, but how you get intervention that might help with debt, drugs and the referrals through to your programme changes: the domestic violence, it is difficult not to see, for a very providers can now decide who they put into the complex family, that knocking those things over one programme. I cannot work out if this is different from at a time gets them on the path to employment. the Work programme. Are you picking up a different The only reason why we changed the payment basis cohort of people? is because if you engage with people on an You also change who is responsible for delivering, in expectation of what they are going to receive and then that the Work programme is now responsible for you find out that referrals have gone down, you have delivering 4,000 of the outcomes. Again, I can see the to produce something or otherwise they will be ESF advantage of doing that, because you shift some significantly out of pocket. We have not paid any more of the funding for the Work programme on to the ESF, money for three progress measures than we set out in but that is not what you originally did. You get the contract. We have simply enabled people to start outcome payments on different issues now in DWP being paid for one and two, rather than just for three. from what you got before. Your internal audit was Several of you have asked about the programme’s extremely critical of you. Is it all about ensuring you value for money. The sums of money we are spending spend the money, or are you really changing the nature are typically, for a job outcome, on average £1,500. of what you are doing? Many of the families are on weekly benefit costs, Robert Devereux: It is not just about how we can which are £300 to £400, and, in one that I have seen, spend the money. What the facts make perfectly clear £960. We are talking about a week or two’s benefit in is the amount of referrals that providers thought they many cases. If those week or two’s benefit costs have were going to get, having talked to local authorities actually moved the domestic violence or the debt issue to establish that in the first place, have simply not further on, it seems to me you are in quite a good materialised. So we are operating at— space in terms of the value for money. We are not This is an embargoed advancespending tens of thousands copy. of pounds per person here. Q97 Chair: Are they the same people who are on the Sir Bob Kerslake: May I just add, as the accounting Work programme? for embargoofficer for the details troubled families programme, I think RobertNot Devereux: toNo, be the characteristic published of this group inthe fundamentals any ofform the programme are right and have is that we are trying to find people who have even been demonstrated through the success so far, which more constraintbefore than simply embargo being long-term time.I think is impressive.See attached The biggest thing we Press have unemployed. achieved is the level of commitment from local authorities to turn round 120,000 families. Clearly, the Q98 Chair: Arenotice they a different bunch? If I am data you have got covers half the period. We have sitting there in JCP, for example, trying to think more data coming through that will be published in whether I will refer someone to the Work programme March. From what we know now, that is showing or to the ESF troubled families programme—I hate continuing strong progress, so I do not think there is the name—do I, as an official in Barking jobcentre, a need to change the fundamentals. take a different judgment? How do I decide where to The big challenge for us is to continue to work with refer my people? those authorities that are not performing as well as Robert Devereux: A lot of the people who are on the some of the ones we saw today to get their ESF programme are on income support. The Work performance up. That gap is closing, on the evidence programme is deliberately taking JSA cohort and ESA we have, but we have to close it further still. cohort, but a large percentage of ESF is going on people on income support—carers or lone parents—so Q99 Chair: Under the terms of the ESF you have to we are trying to find complementary provision here. meet the 22%, and you are miles from that. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 17
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Robert Devereux: No, we agreed with the ESF that Q105 Mr Bacon: When you have a fast-moving this sort of programme was a reasonable thing for ESF picture with so many different caveats, which could to invest in. The 22% is the going rate that the fund mean that any individual number is inaccurate and or the administrators expect to do. That is based on could shift the figures in any direction for nearly any data back in 2008–09, pre-recession, with groups of reason, and when there has been no opportunity for people who were easier to help. So we set 22%, the National Audit Office to examine or validate them, because at that stage we wanted to be challenging. how much use is it to anybody? We are reaching, in some of the data we published Robert Devereux: The National Audit Office has used yesterday, cohort rates of—on some of the JSA the previous release in its updated figures. groups—12%, 13% or 14%, so it is not 22%. Again, coming back to where we started— Q106 Mr Bacon: Not the one from yesterday. This was dated 28 January, wasn’t it? Q100 Chair: You know how we love it when you Robert Devereux: There were two. Which one are you publish data the day before a hearing, particularly looking at? The markers one? when it is data called experimental— Mr Bacon: The troubled families programme, not the Mr Bacon: Experimental statistics. ESF one. The one with a whole load of caveats. It is Robert Devereux: These figures are moving very Caveat city, Arizona. quickly and you will have noticed the difference in Chair: We will move on. the data we published two months ago. Meg Hillier: I shall resist the temptation to say something positive about those figures. Q101 Chair: Well, you know what we feel about it. Robert Devereux: Do. It is the usual thing. You do it every time. Robert Devereux: With respect, I do not do it every Q107 Meg Hillier: I just feel I might be time. outnumbered by my colleagues on this. I know when I’m beaten. I want to touch briefly on the data. I don’t Q102 Chair: We work with NAO Reports, and we want to reopen the whole data debate, but my local certainly do not work with experimental whatever it authority says that this issue of deep diving into is, because that means it has not been verified by the everyone’s data is challenging. I know that when I ONS. dealt with data as a Minister there was a Cabinet Robert Devereux: With the greatest respect, that is committee looking at positively saying, “data is for not what it means. I have professional statisticians in Government to share” and positively sharing it. the organisation who are allowed, within the I am disappointed and dismayed that we are still arrangements they have, ad hoc statistics. having those battles, but the key question is, is there a plan to have some sort of database for the troubled Q103 Chair: Tom, does it mean it has not been families programme? It does not necessarily need to verified by the ONS? be one database, but some sort of key-code access, so Tom McDonald: There is a process that statistics have that if I were, say, a health visitor, I could access the to go through to be certified as national statistics, and education database—probably not the police national experimental statistics have some shortcomings or computer, that is a slightly different arena. I hesitate differences before they have reached that process at to talk about creating a new database, but could there the sign-off stage. be one accessible route in? Is that something that is Robert Devereux: Not everything that the in the landscape at all for the long-term planning of Government has information on is put out in official this programme? Thisstatistics. is That an has nothing embargoed to do with the quality or advanceLouise Casey: It is oncopy. a locality by locality basis. As the veracity of it. Bob said, we were both up in Knowsley on the Friday for embargobefore last where details they have one register, as they call Q104Not Mr Bacon: toHang be on apublished minute. You say it has init, of theirany currently form identified troubled families, where nothing to do with the quality, but you issued seven they are in the programme and what is happening to caveats in your press release. That presumably means them. It is in a wider sense as well—they are looking seven reasonsbefore why this might embargo be all wrong or might time.at domestic See violence, attached family functioning Press and be a moving feast. “Marker Coverage: Current parenting. coverage of the programme provided by the DWP marker is partial.notice This analysis is based on the Q108 Meg Hillier: But they had to compile that. 51,300 individuals”. Louise Casey: They had to compile it themselves; that Robert Devereux: It is partial in the following sense. is a good thing for them to do, though, not a bad thing, You have just heard that we have put all these advisers if you see what I mean. I still think, without labouring into local authorities. They are working rapidly with it, that though it is great that they do that, we need their colleagues on identification, as per the data- health and police at a national level to give permission sharing request that you have just made of us. As to people locally to pitch in with their own things currently stand today, it was at 50,000. Two information. Most people are doing it at a local level, months ago, it was at 20,000. There is a huge change but that would be good as we move into the next going on. The only reason I wondered whether it programme. I have to remind you, though, that we would be best to put it out is because it is moving have identified 92,000 families across these types of fast, and I do not want to leave you with the criteria, so as much as it has been a frustration—I impression that it is not. have probably shared more of that frustration than I Ev 18 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
should have—nevertheless, it is wholesale forward Everybody likes to talk about data sharing, but that is from where we were 12 or 18 months ago. not the problem. You heard Jim from Leeds; they have learned so much about how, even within the local authority, they could Q111 Meg Hillier: It might be a Westminster bubble get some of this done better. The clarity of the scheme discussion. I want to raise one practical thing, though. is that we are trying to get to the most problematic Let’s say that you are in London and you move from, families that cause the most problems—have say, Hackney just to the neighbouring borough of problems and cause problems, are troubled and are Islington. The Met is in one place, but most of the troubling—that has been the sharpness in the other bodies are not. How does the data set move? programme. The other thing to remember is that in That may be a bit detailed for you to answer, or is it order to claim their money they have to be able to something you are thinking about, because it is a prove that they are in education and that they are challenge? reducing crime. So the whole data thing has been Louise Casey: I would feel nervous about being too quite a steep learning curve for everybody, but it is know-it-all about that, Meg, to be honest, but my clearly the right way for the public services to go. sense is that certainly between, say, Hackney and Sir Bob Kerslake: It is really important that we don’t Islington, it would not be a problem, because the get too downhearted. From what I saw in Knowsley, teams are linked in with each other and people follow it has moved on in leaps and bounds since I was a them. The other thing I want to say anecdotally is that chief executive in Sheffield. The level of collaboration I do not feel a huge amount of movement in these on known individuals is in a different place. families. They have lived on estates in particular areas for a long, long time. There is some movement, but Q109 Fiona Mactaggart: May I ask one question they are not running around the country. about those individuals? Are you confident that Meg Hillier: Okay. That’s very helpful. appearing on such a register does not give them Louise Casey: Anecdotally, it doesn’t feel that way. problems when it comes, for example, to getting loans and to other bits of their lives? Q112 Meg Hillier: I’m sorry, Chair, but I have quite Louise Casey: The irony is that they are on a few things to whizz through. The answers could be everybody’s registers for everything already. If only I shorter to some of these questions. was starting with them being great and not committing The measurements of success for education and crime and not being stuffed in children’s services. employment are potentially quite long term. In the time scale of the programme, you are measuring Q110 Fiona Mactaggart: Are you confident that this success, but there is also a longer-term time scale. Is is not adding to those problems? there a point at which people drop off your national radar? I ask that because value for money is really Louise Casey: I am absolutely confident it is the other important. If somebody is meeting your national way around. The irony is that intervention through this criteria, but then they drop off a month later, will you scheme into these families is life-transforming and it still follow them, even though the money does not gets them into a significantly more positive place. follow at that point, because there is still a saving to They have people surrounding them who actually turn be made for the taxpayer and for the family? up at these various programmes, courses and Louise Casey: Yes. I am very keen to come to savings interviews that they do in order to get them through and money, because that is a really important part of it. If anything, I sometimes feel that we worry too what the programme is about, but in terms of what much about this stuff. The most fantastic people do you are asking, I think Jim Hopkinson from Leeds Thisthis stuff. is They an are called embargoed family intervention workers advancestarted to talk about copy. it. These people manage the or family support workers. They work their magic cases; they manage the families; they work with the with these families in so many differentfor ways, embargo and one families. At somedetails time during that relationship, they wayNot is that theyto get be consent published and they say to them, inmay claimany a result. form That does not mean to say that “Look, you’re facing extraordinary difficulties. You’re they walk away from those families, because they going to end up being evicted from your house. You have no incentive whatever to do that, because the may end upbefore with your kids embargo being taken away. Your time.minute the familiesSee drop attached back into problems, their Press cost kids are up to their eyeballs in trouble. Take help from goes back up. this person, and we’ll help you through it.” They are There is a division in my mind between working the sorts of conversationsnotice that are had with the through the 120,000 families, changing the families families. The families are not saying, “I don’t want and doing it for a generation of children—that is why you to share my data.” Honest to God they’re not. If we pitched it so hard in the comprehensive spending they were, we would be running a different type of review last year that this would go beyond the life programme. The families are saying, “Would you all cycle of this Parliament; we are all pushing towards get lost so I can get on with my life?”, and we say to trying to change things over three to five-plus years— them, “We’re not going anywhere till you change the and the evaluation, which looks at a much longer and way you’re behaving, you get your kids to school and much wider set of success factors. Success for me in you let us help you.” That is the dynamic. The tension relation to the 120,000 families is a lot wider and a in the scheme is about having it out with the families lot bigger than a reduction in crime or a significant in a very honest way, saying, “Look, you’re up to your improvement in school attendance. They are really eyes in this difficulty. Please let us help you.” That is powerful signals that something really good has where the tension comes; it is not about data sharing. happened in the household. Let’s say that I am dealing Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 19
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
with a highly dysfunctional household. There is a small amount of money for a local authority; they are drug-addicted or alcohol-dependent mother who is not doing it for this money, they are doing it because living with endless domestic violence and goes from it matters to change these people’s lives. partner to partner. In terms of getting her to see that getting her kids to school is essential, we are not doing Q114 Meg Hillier: It saves them other money pieces of work with her; we are not having perhaps. In terms of the lessons learned about rolling conversations with her. We are saying, “We need to out best practice, this is where, nationally, you have a help you to go from here to getting your kids into real focus on it. When the last Government were in school,” so of course payment by results adds a power, there were a number of anti-poverty sharpness to this programme that nothing I have ever intervention strategies, some of which worked well done or been involved with before does, because the and some that did not, but there was not really a tough point is not how many bits of work you have done or analysis of which ones worked best and the decision how many home visits you have made; it is whether to drop the ones that did not work. How tough are you the person has changed and is now getting their kids going to be on that analysis and do you have any to school. But what that signals, Meg, is a much wider future plans to look at doing this for individuals? At change in what is happening in the household, so our my surgery on Monday there were individuals who evaluation goes further. It looks, first, at a far wider would never qualify under the family criteria—some group and, secondly, at a far wider range of problems, would not qualify because they did not have teenage because clearly we are interested in things such as children and that is another issue that we do not have domestic violence, which I think one member of the time to go into—but they equally are costing the Committee asked a colleague about earlier. system a lot of money and need support. Is there a plan—maybe this is for Sir Bob—for rolling this on Q113 Meg Hillier: According to the NAO Report, further? 43% of local authorities are budgeting on up-front Sir Bob Kerslake: If Louise wants to come in payments only. Do you have worries about that—that specifically on troubled families and I will come back perhaps they are not confident that they will meet the on the wider point. targets, they are just not planning that money in or Louise Casey: I suppose I feel very passionately that they are not going to use payment by results for this the reason that this programme works is because it programme? I am not quite sure how I read that. takes real families with real addresses with real Louise Casey: Bob might want to talk about his problems and it gets everybody to sort them out. The experience in Sheffield, but I will give you my sense most important thing that it does is to get family of this. First, that survey was done quite early on. intervention going into the household. I think that the My sense is that local authorities are not fooled. They interaction between the state and the family is very know that these families are high-cost families. There different. I call it the five factors of family is a difference between prudent budgeting—keeping intervention: it is challenging, it is assertive, it is their directors of finance happy and what you heard practical, it is trusting, it is the dedicated worker. It is about from Leeds—and actually knowing that they one plan, one worker and a commonly agreed agenda. need to turn around and change these families. Of All those things sound really easy to say but, in the course, they signed up to deliver the numbers that we history of working with these families, they are well- want and they are absolutely clear that they need to nigh impossible to achieve. This programme gives do that through a system, transforming the way that real welly behind it. they work with families. In the age of localism, one thing that has been quite I think that people underestimate it—we have interesting for me—because I have worked under Thisexamples is like an the health embargoed service in Leicestershire advancedifferent programmes copy. including the ones that you have sticking millions into the joint pot, we have Peter described—is that the relationship between our central Fahy in Greater Manchester who hasfor seconded embargo police team and the details local authorities and their partners is officersNot into familyto interventionbe published teams, and we have inabsolutely any vital. Becauseform this is a really hard thing for Wandsworth, where they have mental health workers, them to do, I think that we work together in a very clinical psychiatrists and somebody that specialises in intense and close way. We are relentlessly doing visits, behaviourbefore of children. The amountembargo of gifts in kind time.making phone See calls and attached listening to what is working, Press and joint working at this stage in the programme is we are trying to reflect back and we are a very hands- incredibly impressive. I think that there is a difference on programme. I know that it is an odd thing to say between people managingnotice their finances and getting because it is a PBR, but the relationship between us on with the job and what is actually happening. and the local authorities is absolutely vital. I think that Sir Bob Kerslake: Just to reinforce that point, I think that is why it works. that many authorities will take a prudent view about planning for money that they might not get. It is not Q115 Meg Hillier: So you are rolling out best that they are unconfident about the outcome. We have practice already? had these kinds of models set before by Government, Louise Casey: Constantly. Our constant job— you set the performance reward grant and most authorities did not budget and get the money. Q116 Meg Hillier: And best value for money The second point was made about Liverpool, by practice as well? Colette, that even if they get the money, what they are Louise Casey: Yes, we did a costing of troubled saying is “We will reinvest that back into long-term families, nine months to 12 months ago, which was strengthening of our training”. This is a relatively our first foray into trying—everywhere I went, people Ev 20 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
would say to me “I have a family, Louise, that costs portion of those, of which Leeds, in terms of where this amount of money”, and they almost enjoyed we are in the 120,000, is at 2,190—or something like telling me how much they had cost. That approach that. It has done its own analysis and, as Jim said, it does not work when you work in jobs like mine, it was slightly ahead of that. It might have more local has to be significantly more rigorous than that. So we criteria that it adopts. It was saying that it thinks 3,000 actually did a report, very much leaning on some local families in Leeds might need or benefit from this type authorities to help us, that worked out how you could of approach. I am fine with that. Part of the benefit of start looking at the cost of troubled families. About a the programme is that they need to deliver a year later, what is really interesting is that we are now commitment for each £4,000 we hand out—of course putting together this thing called a cost calculator. they must—but if they can restructure their services The bottom line is that three local authorities that have to be significantly more effective for a wider cohort gone into this with us in a lot of detail know the costs. of families, great. They are not daft, these local Manchester knows that for every one of their troubled authorities. families, it has a net saving of £35,000 a year. Places such as Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle are Leicestershire county council, has a net saving of using the programme and using the small amount of £27,500 a year and the London borough of money that we are giving them, which, as Bob says, Wandsworth, which has also done this, has a net is a bit of a drop in the ocean, and using it to invest saving of £29,000 per year per family. That is a in services in a different way. For example, the local cautious estimate—in fact, it is not an estimate; it has criteria is heavily used for things such as edge of been done thoroughly by partners and analysts, and care—kids at risk of care, kids on child protection the Treasury is happy with what we are doing on the plans. Every time we properly solve what is cost calculator. happening in a family, which means that a child does The NAO Report is absolutely right to say—I will not not have to go into foster care, you are saving even look at Amyas because he is probably thinking £40,000. There are lots of reasons and lots of things that I am overstepping the mark—that we do not have they can do with the programme that help them more a fiscal analysis and that we have one coming through generally. the evaluation, but those authorities are doing this Your next thing of course is— because these families cost a huge amount of money and they do not want to leave them in poverty with Q118 Nick Smith: You want to scale it up. the disadvantages that has. Louise Casey: We want to scale it up. Sir Bob Kerslake: In terms of shared lessons across government, there are three really important ones: one Q119 Nick Smith: You want to expand it by six about shared endeavour between central and local; one times what Leeds needs scaling up by. about focus on outcomes through the payment by Louise Casey: And part of that is the recognition that results; and thirdly, encouraging local partnership. We there is no shortage of families in the country that are specifically drawing from the lessons of troubled might benefit from a different approach. They may families to see how they could apply to the better care have slightly fewer problems than the group we are fund model. currently working with. I am keen, as we move into Chair: We have a lot of people with questions, so the next phase, to look at families with slightly keep it tight guys. younger children so we can get to families slightly earlier. The nature of the programme, as we put it in Q117 Nick Smith: First of all, like others, I am at the moment, is to look at school attendance and pleased that you are sharing data. It is great that you youth crime. That naturally takes me to a slightly Thishave joint is working. an Louise,embargoed you talked about having advanceolder group of children. copy. They won’t have any trouble, sometimes to work between 10 and 30 agencies. It is I don’t think, in identifying families in places like great that that is happening. I am convincedfor embargo that you Leeds to populate details the next programme. Remember willNot save a shed to load be of money published and a lot of grief in a inthat £400,000 any commitment form goes over the lifetime of lot of communities around the country. I also think the next one. It is not just all next year. We will only that you have a fantastic ambition on turning around do a portion in 2015–16. It is a three-year period. people’s lives,before and I think all embargo power to your elbow. time. See attached Press Lots of big numbers have been bandied around Q120 Nick Smith: It is three times what you are though, and I am just a bit unsure about some of them. planning to do for this Parliament. You have talked aboutnotice working with 90,000 families Louise Casey: But it is the right thing to do, isn’t it? now and 120,000 by 2015, and then talked about By then we will have turned round families. We know working with another 400,000 between 2015 and how to structurally do some of this reform. People 2020. It is ambitious, but it is really, really ambitious. need to do it because they’ve got to save money. We When Mr Hopkinson was talking about what was have to save money and we have to stop these families going on in Leeds earlier, he said, “I am working with ending up in the enormous difficulties where there is 2,000 families, but there’s only another 1,000 to work a young offender doing five or six offences in six with.” There seems to be a disconnect between what months, police calls-outs up to the eyeballs and people he was saying was happening—the prevalence in using A&E because they don’t have a clue how to use Leeds—and what you are saying the big picture is Calpol. We cannot carry on like that and this nationally. Give me a bit more comfort about that. programme gives it a real edge in terms of making Louise Casey: Of course. Let me try. We start with people get on with the job in quite a robust way. It is 120,000 families and agree with local authorities their quite a tough programme. I think that is what you are Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 21
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
saying to me and I think it is extraordinarily menace, induce, do good practice, write things called ambitious, but if we are determined about it I think “Working with Troubled Families” and so on and so we will get it right. forth; but that is the factor that will change the intervention with the families. Q121 Nick Smith: Thanks for that. I support the Last week I was in Cowgate in Newcastle, which is need for it. It just seems very ambitious. I am an estate which is well known and has improved interested in why you have set it so high. Again, Mr immeasurably. I was there looking at a voluntary Hopkinson from Leeds talked about being successful sector project and what Newcastle troubled families with 35% of families. That felt excellent. And you people want to do. I think David Holmes from Family talked about turning round lives for the 120,000 Action was talking about the use of the voluntary families that you are working with. So what about the sector, so that once you have gone through the 65% who have not been successful so far? What will intensive programme—the short fat intervention, happen to the very, very troubled families? Will they which is what family intervention is—you are not just be part of the next cohort for the next Parliament? left on your own, but we actually think about how we Will you work through because there will still be a start to use the voluntary sector and the community to job of work for many of those families? sustain those changes. Louise Casey: There are two things here. In places Work is going to be a major issue. We have got places like Leeds we have a year and a half to work this like Manchester and others that see this programme through with local authorities. So, yes, Jim is at a 35% as part of their growth agenda, so the importance of projection at the moment. I am confident, as are they, maintaining the Jobcentre Plus co-ordinators in our that in Leeds that figure will go up. Remember the troubled families scheme just cannot be way we structured the programme meant we started underestimated. We need to keep that going and if asking them to get 35% in year 1, to start working possible expand it, because I know, like you know, the with 50% in the current year and 15% in the last year. best solution for all these families is to get them a job. So we are managing the risk, including in places such as Leeds, about how much money we hand out and Q123 Ian Swales: There are certain things we look how we encourage people to do it. It is ambitious. out for as potential issues, and one of them is payment This is extraordinarily ambitious. I was working under by results. The Report says at paragraph 16, “Early a previous Administration when we set up family indications also suggest that the incentives may not intervention projects and brought them down from work in the way that the Departments envisaged.” I Dundee into England. These are trying to get to am just wondering what you—particularly Louise— families that we know have intergenerational think about that. problems. But there is an edge to the programme with One could argue, when you listen to the evidence of the sense of getting them to school, reducing crime, if the chief executive of Family Action—I think you not getting them out of crime. We are more ambitious were here for that—and some of the quite small than any other Government programme on that. changes, like diet and things like that, that actually People want to do it. I feel very confident about it, to need to happen, that the payment by results methods be honest with you. may not be covering that kind of work and indeed may mean, as we see in other programmes, that people Q122 Chair: I am intervening because I just want to tend to work with the families where they are most ask you a question. Those things are good but how likely to succeed, and the most troubled families are you going to sustain them? How are you going to might actually fall behind. So how do you react to keep them working towards contributing to society that? Thisand not costingis an money embargoed to the public? They are okay. advanceLouise Casey: I think copy. the first thing to say is the They are not the ones who will make it sustainable. voluntary sector are independent and need to make up Getting into work, getting out of poverty:for those embargo sorts their own minds details about how they work with these ofNot things make to it sustainable be published and I am slightly iffy infamilies any and however form long they think it takes, and, about this. It is good to have key criteria but are they quite rightly, stand up for what their organisation ones that will give you sustainability for the believes is the right way of working for them. The programme?before embargo time.Government See and local attached authorities have to make Press sure Louise Casey: It is one of the areas that I am that they change the way these families, basically, concerned about and very much turning my attention absorb resources; and at the same time there are quite to at the moment.notice I know through the research of the a lot of us that feel quite strongly about making sure NatCen on family intervention of the five years from these families improve their lives, so their kids grow 2005 onwards that the sort of sustainability is up safer, happier and— incredibly impressive. Maintaining kids in education 14 months after family intervention has gone is Q124 Ian Swales: Sorry to interrupt. I totally support something like 89%. It is high already. Family the programme. I am not being critical of the functioning is key if we are going to get them to programme. What I am trying to say is: payment by Robert’s Jobcentre people. Something like 84% are results—is there a risk that it has any perverse assessed to be high family functioning 14 months incentives; for example, not working with the worst afterwards. families because you are less likely to get the results? The risk for me as a programme manager on this is Louise Casey: Honest to God, I think it is the that I cannot force every local authority to do family opposite; actually we have factors that include the intervention the way I want them to do it. I can charm, local discretion one, which is about high cost. We Ev 22 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
know, because it is in the NAO Report, that local is informing the design? Will you do anything authorities are using that fourth criterion for things differently if you are working with 400,000 different like—75% of local authorities are using one of the families, and a different set of services? Have you care factors as their local criteria. Of course they are thought about how you might change the payment by doing that because, like all of us do in the public results mechanism? sector, they give a damn about the children in those Louise Casey: It is too soon for us to make any public families; but, boy oh boy, they need to reduce their pronouncements on that. I include speaking at this care costs. So this is a programme of the head and the Committee as a public pronouncement. We have just heart, I think; and I think that is why it is such a consulted with all 152 local authority troubled family powerful combination. co-ordinators, and we are going into a period of I also think we had to be very clear at the beginning talking to people, including from the voluntary sector. that we were not going to micro-manage. I do not The long and the short of it is that there is something think anybody would mind my saying this; at one incredibly, breathtakingly radical about not just having point we had 78 indicators from our colleagues in endless bits of work with families. For example, you Whitehall, two years ago, across each Department, all might meet a woman who has been referred to the deciding they wanted to stick whatever they thought freedom programme on domestic violence four times; was important into my PBR—or our PBR, forgive somebody has paid for that four times. You know that me Bob. it is a total waste of money because if it is a domestic We had to fight all of that off, to get something really violence course, she is not going to make it, and what straightforward, which is if we just got every kid in she needs is a different approach. We need to work this country to school from the age of four or five and with these people in ways that get us clean, kept them there safely all day, so they could learn straightforward outcomes. I would worry about something, we would change social policy overnight. anything that goes forward that ends up with some So we went for that one; and of course safety in the Whitehall tryst of endless factors and endless household. Crime is not a good thing for anybody, and complications. therefore we went for crime; and of course we went for a kind of absolute—if you get them in a job, you Q126 Ian Swales: I agree with that. Can I finish by can have the money. adding another point to do with the alignment of A woman I met not long ago suffered domestic benefits and costs? I met six recovering male violence, you know, a terrible case; getting her a job alcoholics in my constituency who themselves meant we had to solve everything that was happening calculated that they had cost the system over £1 in the household—and get her a wig, incidentally. million between them, and yet we were struggling to Some of the things these families are up against are get the kind of services they needed to move on. The incredibly practical; and the confidence from having real issue is that troubled families—the report the right dentures or wig is not about a social care estimates £9 billion, and I would not argue with that— assessment that takes 31 days. It is about hearing her cost the system a fortune. It pops out in all different say, “I can’t leave the house.” areas. We are spending money out of some budgets Sir Bob Kerslake: Can I just make two points on this and the benefits are in others. I think we all agree that issue, because it is a really crucial point. We spent a this is something of a no-brainer, in terms of “let’s do lot of time thinking about the design of payment by it”, but are you satisfied that the transmission results. What persuaded me was that first, it needed to mechanisms for paying for it align sufficiently with be kept simple and secondly, we should not the benefits, so that we can push this as hard as we overestimate the sums and the motivation. The can, or are you seeing some breaks in the system or Thismotivation is for an local authoritiesembargoed is vastly outweighed advanceissues that say this copy. is undermining our ability to do by the impact on their other costs. It is simply not in this? their interests to game the system. for embargoLouise Casey: detailsI do not think we have anything that is Not to be published inabout aany break in theform system. I think we need to look Q125 Ian Swales: Except that you have private carefully at how we want to structure a future providers in some parts of this area. You have other programme, which, as your colleague Nick said, is providers.before This is what weembargo have seen in other time.huge. We See have gone attached from 120,000 to 400,000Press Departments. Overall, nobody is going to game the families. We need to think very carefully about the system, but my question was really about bringing in learning from the current programme, and the a provider and givingnotice them a particular target to meet. feedback we have had from local authorities and Not surprisingly, we find that those organisations drive others, when it comes to how we structure a new one. to try to meet the target. Sometimes you find perverse Even in this programme—it will be the same in the incentives—on doctors’ out-of-hours services, for full one—we are not meeting the full cost of the example. intervention with these families from this budget. Sir Bob Kerslake: That is a wider point about Some of that is borne by us and some by people payment by results. The point about the troubled locally. We have already established a programme, families initiative is that local authorities identify the and I think it would be same for the others, where families who need to be worked with. That is the people are beginning to see that you have to reduce key point. the resources. Tom McDonald: As the troubled families programme Can I, in fairness, pick up on the question that Meg evolves, what have you learnt about the use of asked? There are lessons in the way that Bob talked payment by results in this part of the programme that about how you might look at other high-cost groups Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 23
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
and work with them differently. I used to do the To what do you attribute the seemingly exceedingly homelessness job; it is obvious that other high-cost poor performance of Reed in Partnership in the east groups would benefit from a different approach. I have of England, in terms of attachments and claims for to say, having been around for such a long time, that outcomes? In that period, it is very low. In the case of we have to do something about children growing up figure 9 on page 33, it is 7% of the indicative target in these households; I often feel that they are the and 20% of the actual sustained job outcome. Is there victims in this debate. I am not prepared to say, “I tell a particular problem with the east of England or Reed you what, I’ll water down my programme to deal with in Partnership? lots of things and walk away from potentially Robert Devereux: There are two answers to that. Part hundreds of thousands of children”, because in six or of what you are seeing in figure 9 for all the providers 12 months, or sometimes shorter, we can change what is the low extent of referrals from local authorities to is happening in those households to the degree that them, so those are not self-generated numbers. The they do not have to end up in care or in a young Chair asked me earlier whether we had found ways offenders institution. That is how powerful this for other people to be referred, other than local programme can be. authorities, which we have done. The 7% and the variation there is largely to do with what has been Q127 Ian Swales: Just to finish my point, you talked provided to them, rather than what their action is. You earlier about the cost calculator. Policy makers who then have to say, “If they have had so few people want to support this programme will need evidence— coming in, what would you have expected to see on for example, fewer people in prison—and we can the outcome measure?”, since, again, absolute work out what the benefit of that is. I asked the numbers are being quoted here. The truth is— previous witnesses about the extent to which they are measuring the benefits of it. Are you geared up for the Q129 Chair: Sorry; 7% of what? Actual against policy makers to be given a completely “sign here” target? kind of proposition, because the benefits are so clear Mr Jackson: Yes. and are based on reality—not just assertions or Chair: Yes, I’ve got it. Go on. ideas—as a result of the fact that we are tracking what Robert Devereux: It is against an interpolation that is happening more? the NAO has done. It is a low number, but there is Louise Casey: We have let a huge, in my view, no pretending that there isn’t variation between the evaluation contract to a consortium called Icarus. providers, which are, in turn, producing different sorts Within that, there will be a cost-benefit analysis done of conversations with my colleagues about what they by—I can’t remember who they are, but they are can do to improve on that, where they can learn and terribly good at their job. There are other people, but what they must do with better marketing and so on. we have got the best. We have MORI doing some You all have experience of different providers in that stuff and whatever-they-are called doing the finances. regard. You have chosen Reed, which is struggling in I think you are absolutely right. I am nervous about some areas. The first page is about referrals and the things like this, so I talk about what I think the second is about the extent to which, with low referrals, programme is about, which is the children and the you end up with low results in the short term. families, but I am also very hard-headed about the fact that the programme has to prove itself. It has to prove Q130 Mr Jackson: Are you going to try a remedial its worth, otherwise we need to find a different way strategy to tackle that in the east of England? to work with these families. We have to change the Obviously, that is my neck of the woods, and it is way these families are, and we have to change the concerning that it is not keeping up with even the Thisresources. is You an are absolutely embargoed right to go on to me advanceworst of the other regionscopy. where contracts have been about it. You are completely right about it, and I hope awarded. that the evaluation will show usfor whether embargo we are Robert Devereux: detailsWe are doing two different classes gettingNot it right, to and be if we published are not, where we can inof things. any First, weform are working with local authorities improve it. The thing to reassure the Committee about and providers to generate more referrals. The data, is that the evaluation goes far wider than the which were published a long time ago—I am not simplicity ofbefore the PBR, so it isembargo looking at a much wider time.introducing See anything new—madeattached it perfectly Press clear set of data. We are all pretty driven about the stuff that in the six months to September 2013, twice as around costs, because if we can save costs around many people were attached than in the 15 months up these families, wenotice might be able to use that money for to March 2013, so the pace at which we are beginning other families in different ways. We are all with you to fix this is increasing. The numbers are likely to go on wanting to find ways to save money. up further still in the future, and that is largely because of the secondments that send staff into local Q128 Mr Jackson: You are very taciturn this authorities. We are breaking down the lack of afternoon, Mr Devereux. I know it is difficult to break knowledge about and antipathy towards the providers into the Bob and Louise show, but I will give you by having our own people work with local authorities an opportunity. and deciding which individual is best sent to that Sir Bob Kerslake: I am happy to sit— provision, as opposed to being sent to the employment Mr Jackson: Yes, you can have a rest, you two. In or education provision. We are working on the fact, Sir Bob, I have not seen you so animated for referral bit. many a session—there is a spring in your step. I have Separately, we are asking—we are basing this on the a genuine question, Mr Devereux, on figures 9 and 10. current month—“Given the referrals you have had, Ev 24 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
where do we expect a good performer to be?” We are Louise Casey: Interestingly, they are connected. The challenging ourselves to get to 22%—we know we are first thing to say is that the cost calculator, or whatever not there. We are asking, “Where should you be? we call it, will be an immensely practical tool that What are other people like you managing to achieve, local authorities will be able to use now. We are given the number of referrals?” hoping we will be able to get that up shortly. Although I hesitate to refer back to the stuff I have published—I am trying to help you out—the cohort Q133 Chair: The benefit— information gives me some information about the rate Louise Casey: It will show that the benefit does not at which I should expect other people to get people all come to them, so it is important that local into work, so I can say to Reed, “Look, although authorities are able to work—it is a partnership thing, you’ve had fewer referrals, by now I would have not that I like that word, but it genuinely is. The police expected you to have achieved this, and you are not will able to see the cost of a domestic violence doing it. What are you going to do about it?” Both incident or a case across the criminal justice system. those things are happening now. We will be able to look at health and children’s Mr Jackson: Thank you for that very comprehensive services. answer. Ms Casey, you have a passionate interest in this issue and a very good command of the facts, and Q134 Mr Jackson: The figures are enormous, aren’t I want to understand this. Obviously, after the riots in they? If we help three families in Manchester, that is 2011, there was a strategic view in Government about £100,000, and for 30 families it is £1 million. the value for money that a troubled families Louise Casey: That is why I am anxious to get this programme would deliver across the whole country. cost calculator right. I am the one at the moment who You mentioned some figures for local authorities—I is saying that I want to see it for myself and make think Manchester, Wandsworth and Leicestershire sure it is easy for local authorities and their partners county council. Were those figures broken down at the time for each local authority, and if not, will they be to use, and that it will be robust enough. I spent the now? Our local authorities are going through the first six months with people showing me how much budget-making process now, and they are all saying money they thought they were spending on these that they are having to make difficult decisions. From families in some sort of competition. I am not DCLG’s point of view, is the troubled families interested in that. It has to be real, and we have to be programme a tool for letting them know the indicative able to show what I think we will show: that money figures? That is my first question. will go back to local government, or they will spend Secondly, I am interested in the mechanics of how less money—let me put it that way. There will be you get the balance between the carrot and the stick. savings for the police and on health, and therefore for Local authorities are under day-to-day pressure—they the Treasury. That is what we think it will show, but might have serious case reviews or a serious shortage we need to get it absolutely right. of qualified social workers. Where is the stick there? The cost calculator is definitely on its way, and it will Many directors of children’s services will say, “Look, be enormously helpful to everyone because it will put we’ve got a day-to-day firefighting priority, and this out there transparently for this particular group of is not as important, because it is a long-term families—you can apply it to other groups as well— investment.” Coming back to Mr Bacon’s point, how the sort of costs that are caught up and how, for the can central Government force them to do it in a first time, it is quite radical. We will be able to see the practical way that will deliver? At the moment, some way that works, in terms of public sector reform. of them are not delivering. The final part of my long question—forgive me, Q135 Meg Hillier: May I chip in on that? Will you ThisChairman—is: is an is it aboutembargoed political buy-in? Do too advancebe updating the values copy. on the calculator? If the court many senior councillors say, “Well,for these guys embargo are on system reformed details itself, it might be cheaper in future. theNot fringes of societyto be and, frankly, published they don’t vote for inLouise any Casey: When form people have better data, ideally us. It doesn’t really matter if we don’t do it, because they will work out their own costs. It is a tool to help they will always be with us”? Is there a sort of cultural them work out what their local costs are. For example, resistance tobefore taking the bull byembargo the horns? time.those in Greater See Manchester attached might be different Press from Chair: Before you answer, let me just say that for those in Hackney. Do you see what I mean? It is quite figure 7, where you see the attachments, I was told in sophisticated, which is partly why I obviously do not my brief that the worstnotice performers were Lincolnshire, know as much about it as I probably should, sitting Brent and Buckinghamshire, which is interesting here. It is too sophisticated for me, but when it is less because they are a mixed bunch, and the best sophisticated and I can understand it, we will be able performers were Herefordshire, Bury, and Bath and to put it out there, so that people can use it. North East Somerset. We are hoping that colleagues will be able to work out ways to save costs and make savings relevant to Q131 Mr Jackson: So it is not as if it is just urban their own area. It is not a national thing; it is real authorities in Lancashire. It is a mixture across locally. I think that will help them with the discussions England. they need to have about not walking away from the Louise Casey: Yes. table and saying, “Sorry, Mr Police Officer and Mrs Health Service, you need to be part of this discussion, Q132 Mr Jackson: That was a very long question in because I am saving you money, so I want your three parts. money now to help me carry on with this job.” Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 25
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
What is interesting about it is that it takes you into political side about trying to do this. Everyone the radical change in the way we work, and I do not believes, whether Labour Leeds, Conservative think children’s services can sit outside that debate Westminster or somewhere else run by the Liberal any longer. We know that. I was in a shire where they Democrats down in Devon or wherever, that this is told me about a family with four children in the the right thing to do. That has really helped us. We do household. One had already been removed and taken not have political infighting about this stuff locally into care, the next was on a child protection plan, the or nationally. next was called a child in need—there is a whole Sir Bob Kerslake: It is worth saying that the process around that—and the other had something difference in performance is not down necessarily to called “team around the child”, which seemed to be political leadership; it is down to where they started that he or she went to the school for an extra course. from. So some authorities had family intervention Each of those four children had their own social care programmes already— team in a different bit of the authority. Before I start on the endless other organisations and agencies Q137 Chair: To be honest, looking at the bottom of involved in the complications of those four children, the list, you would have thought Brent would have there was the mum, with no one working effectively been doing this for years. enough to change the way the mother was parenting, Mr Jackson: Given Brent’s history. and domestic violence was a huge issue. By working Sir Bob Kerslake: Potentially, yes, but it is not down with the mother over a period, we saw a step down, to type of authority, political control or anything. to use social services jargon, for the right reasons, Chair: Or Lincolnshire. such as safety in the household and more effective parenting. That is a good thing for the family, and it Q138 Mr Jackson: You might have misunderstood. is a bloody good thing for the taxpayer. I was not saying that some people for party political reasons set their face against the programme; I was Q136 Mr Jackson: Sorry to interrupt. In more saying that irrespective of party, the senior Peterborough we have been through the horrific leadership— process of a sexual grooming case, and I pay tribute to Sir Bob Kerslake: Is crucial. Cambridge constabulary and Peterborough children’s Mr Jackson: The senior cabinet members, including services, which were fantastic. On this occasion the leader and deputy leader—not the case in Leeds, Peterborough city council was very good. The point because the deputy leader is driving this—may think, is that in a sense its issue is, “Protect these children. “Well, it’s a great programme, but it’s not the top Look after these children”, but—I hate the expression, priority.” but it is the only one I can use—they do not have Sir Bob Kerslake: I appreciate your point. What I am the resources, or provision even, to think downstream saying is that sometimes political leadership is the about how you deal with the parenting. That is the reason, but sometimes it is where that authority is in challenge, isn’t it? terms of its data and programme. Louise Casey: It is, but remember what a great Mr Jackson: That is a useful point. Thank you. programme we are trying to run here. We give people in Peterborough children’s services the ability to use Q139 Austin Mitchell: I want to explore the the money that we are giving them to do precisely that evaluation service. I will tell you a little more—the type of work. Instead of assessing the hell out of a DWP first of all. The highest performing contractor family, because we are worried about statutory duties, achieved 74% of the target for attachments in the first we are able to have someone else work with the 21 months; the lowest performer was 7%. Can you Thisfamily tois change an them. embargoed advanceexplain these variations? copy. Why is it that Yorkshire and A case in the Wirral: a girl on domestic violence; Humberside, where my constituency is, gets a worse children being taken away becausefor she wasembargo not service than details the east midlands, which are pretty protectingNot them, to because be the blokepublished kept coming back; incontiguous, any and aform much worse service than the best she is about to have her children removed, because performer of all, which was Greater Manchester? she is not protecting them; and actually the family What causes the variations? interventionbefore worker worked embargo alongside statutory time.Robert Devereux: SeeAs Iattached was trying to explain Press to Mr children’s services, who were rightly concerned about Jackson earlier, the table you are looking at in figure the safety of the children. Yes, she was under statutory 9 is a table of the percentage of what we had hoped children’s servicesnotice looking at her; the family they would have attached for the programme that is intervention worker went in; man removed from actually attaching. This is a programme that is set up household permanently and properly; and the rest, as in the first instance for local authorities to refer people they say, is history. The reason that this programme to these providers. If you have been all the way round has such good traction with those in local government in the conversation so far, it is local authorities who is that they can see that there is a bigger prize for understand who these families are in the first instance, them. They know that they are going to have to look and you are getting rates of referrals from different at restructuring children’s services. authorities across the country. Figure 9 has more to The other thing that I wanted to say was that you have do with the referral mechanism than the performance made a very important point, which is one of the best mechanism. things about this programme: it has political buy-in As I tried to explain, in figure 10 you are getting into from all political parties. All 152 local authorities what the actual providers are managing to do with the signed up. I have had no bother whatever from any people that they have received. I was trying to tell you Ev 26 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
two stories. One is that we are trying to raise referrals in paragraph 3.4 that early on in the programme, when in the figure 9 sense. Secondly we are trying to use a local authorities in some areas were thinking of yardstick that says, “Here is the sort of performance referring, they did not have the confidence in the that you are getting across the piece, with good DWP-contracted providers in order to do so. performers in individual cohorts—that is what I would expect you, provider A, B and C, to be achieving Q145 Chair: All I will say is that all three of our now.” witnesses did not talk to the DWP. There is something wrong. Q140 Austin Mitchell: Look at the variations— Robert Devereux: Sorry—who didn’t talk to the Greater Manchester is so much more successful than DWP? anybody else, but everybody is below target. Does the fact that you have changed the targets from three Q146 Chair: Our three witnesses. When I asked measures of success to one and made it easier mean whether they were engaged with the DWP that you are going to reward failure? programme, they all said no, and it wasn’t a placed Robert Devereux: No, I don’t think that that is the question. case. Let us be careful. Each provider was required, Robert Devereux: But you have just observed that, as part of their bid, to work with local authorities to actually, Leeds is one of the places where I do have identify what sort of numbers of referrals they could referrals being made by the authority, so I wonder plausibly expect to receive, and on that basis they did whether the question that you asked and the answer their business case. What I am observing here is that you think you have heard are on the same point. they have not had the extent of referrals that they were Chair: I just said, “What’s your experience?”—I expecting. When that then turns up on a contract cannot remember exactly. where people have already invested in staff, salaries Louise Casey: I honestly think that at paragraph 3.4 and supply chains, we have taken one decision only, the NAO have nailed this. I think that it is a and that is simply to say that within the money that combination of factors: local authorities lacked we would otherwise have paid at the point at which confidence in the providers and limited the referrals, somebody had three progress measures, we have but they also knew that we were coming along and started to give people the ability to earn a third of that were wondering what was going to happen. Simply to for one or for two measures along the way. Many of say that local authorities did not refer to ESF and that them are now getting towards three anyway, so we is why it is a problem does not completely hold water. have affected the cash flow but we have not affected However, to say that it is down to ESF providers does the overall cost. not hold water either. The NAO nails it in those four bullet points in paragraph 3.4, to be honest. Q141 Austin Mitchell: How are the failures going to The learning, however, is that the join-up that Robert be improved if the hurdles have been lowered? has talked about this afternoon, with his brilliant Robert Devereux: As I have just tried to explain, I do decision alongside Ministers to get us Jobcentre Plus not believe that we have materially lowered the people and put them in troubled families teams, means hurdles. I have not changed the overall price of this that we have actually overcome the issues around this. thing; I have made it easier for them to get some cash I do think that the 51,000 markers, as Robert refers to with each progress point where previously I would them in DWP language, show that there is a join-up. have required them to get all three before they got The point at which they did the 51,000 markers— any. The alternative at this point would be that if you admittedly of individuals, not families—is the point at have a big reduction in referrals, many of these which we are working with 62,000 families. So it is providers’ cash flows are very stretched. They could not perfect and there is probably fault on everybody’s Thiseasily haveis financialan embargoed considerations. We made aadvanceside, but we are now copy. at a place where, as long as we conscious choice to find a sensiblefor reflection embargo of the can maintain details the momentum on the Jobcentre Plus reductionNot in referralsto be that keeps published the providers going injoin-up any with troubled form families in local government, we but is not actually giving away anything that I do not are in a good place, Mr Mitchell. think is appropriate. before embargo time.Q147 Austin See Mitchell: attachedMoving on to you, whyPress is Q142 Chair: We will come back to that, Austin. Mr the highest-performing local authority exceeding the Devereux, is your programme voluntary? number of attachments agreed by 177%, while the Robert Devereux:noticeYes. lowest-performing missed its target by 67%? Louise Casey: The first thing to say is that, in terms Q143 Chair: Do any of the providers give any of— incentive for people to join the programme? Austin Mitchell: Figure 7 shows that a lot of them Robert Devereux: In a financial sense? are below 100%. Louise Casey: At the end of March in the first year Q144 Chair: Or in kind. I have no idea; I am just of the programme, when local authorities had not been asking. operating the programme for a year, there were local Robert Devereux: Not that I am aware of. We have authorities that hadn’t started working with their full certainly not encouraged them to do that. number. I think the shortfall was 13% at that point. Tom McDonald: There is one other piece in the That’s right, isn’t it? By June, we had only 840 jigsaw that helps to explain levels of attachments, and families who should have been worked with but who perhaps the variations that we have seen. We set out weren’t being worked with. They were supposed to Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 27
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
get 35%, which is 41,000 families, and they didn’t crime is a difficult thing to do with families. I have quite make that figure by March, but they all caught made it sound easy this afternoon, but it is not; it is up by June. In the scheme of things, honest to God, I extremely difficult to do that with children with think that that is okay. As we have gone forward with exceedingly low attendance rates compared with the the scheme, as you can see with the October national average, which includes people who just take turnaround figures that are also in the NAO Report, two weeks to go skiing. We are dealing with families we are starting to narrow that gap. They say—I don’t who are well away from that, and changing them is know why you gave us this—that somehow we are very hard. The message from yourself and other overperforming on turning around. I think we are just colleagues is that we have to nail getting the cost where we should be, and I am quite happy with it. We calculator right so that people are able to start showing also don’t use the words “targets” and “attachment with hard evidence that there are savings to be made fees” with local authorities. that help people. Sir Bob Kerslake: Clearly, a better jobs market helps Q148 Austin Mitchell: What is the conversion rate the programme, but, frankly, many of those families from attachments to outcomes? have struggled to get into work in boom or recession. Louise Casey: We ask people to commence working The deep underlying issues are not to do with the with a family in the way I have talked about this wider economy, they are to do with the experiences afternoon, and over that time period they convert them of those families, particularly, as we heard earlier, into changing what is happening in the family. They experiences around domestic violence. might be a family who weren’t getting their kids to school, whose kids were excluded or whatever, whose Q150 Chris Heaton-Harris: First, to Louise Casey, kids were caught up in crime or one of the other issues thank you. I love you. You’re brilliant. Every of worklessness. We expect local authorities to make Department should have one of you. a claim, and they have done it to the tune of 22,000 Louise Casey: I don’t think Bob necessarily thinks by October, which is in the NAO Report. We use that every day. language such as “working with” and “turning Chris Heaton-Harris: I’m sure he does. families around” because, as Sir Bob has said, the up- Sir Bob Kerslake: Of course I do. front money we are putting into local authorities for this doesn’t really cover the full cost; it is an incentive Q151 Chris Heaton-Harris: It seems that you have and a driver. The money is important to local broken down a number of barriers in the short time authorities, because they need to collect every bit of that the programme has been running. What is your money they can get at the moment, but this is not a next big barrier—the next big issue that you need to normal PBR scheme. We are not fully funding break down? After that I have a couple of questions anybody to do anything; we are giving local for Mr Devereux. authorities some extra money so that they can Louise Casey: The biggest challenge that we face is restructure services and try to change things. It is not doing this to scale and getting the type of system like the other PBR schemes run by the rest of change that you need. I don’t want this to be a project Government. It is very different. that people just manage the numbers on—do you see Sir Bob Kerslake: Just to reinforce the point that I what I mean? It’s a bit like when we set up family made to Mr Jackson, authorities started from different intervention projects. Joe and I—he is sat behind places. Some are playing catch-up, and we should me—have worked together for a long time. We went recognise that. round the country and set up 53 family intervention projects. They were boutique projects that were ThisQ149 Austinis an Mitchell: embargoedThe programmes are finite advancebrilliant but they didn’t copy. change the mainstream. The and have an achievement date, or whatever it is. At learning for me is that we have to change the the same time, things are improving.for Crime embargo and mainstream. details We have to look at how we prevent unemploymentNot to are be falling published anyway, and the inpeople any from ending form up in a situation where they are Government are giving us a song and dance about badly behaved or are neglected when they arrive in getting growth up to 2%, which is staggering. There is school—how we stop them being excluded at 11 always thebefore possibility of continued embargo cuts, so I wonder time.because we haven’tSee dealt attached with the issue in the family.Press whether both programmes are going to be able to A cultural revolution is needed, around not just show sufficient success because it is very difficult to responding to your problems but looking at you and show sufficientnotice success and sufficient value to seeing what is happening completely, and how that continue, as I think they should. They are valuable then helps us go into public service transformation. programmes, but are they going to be able to That is my biggest challenge. What people normally demonstrate that value in the face of possible cuts do is start with the system, and start talking about later on? things like public service transformation. The beauty Louise Casey: I think that is where the responsibility in this programme is that it starts with what’s on us in the central team is to provide local colleagues happening in the families—why they cause the with the cost calculator tool, which will very problems they have and why they have the problems straightforwardly show the money into the families they have. We work back from that in how we then and the savings they make on those families. It is tackle the system. That is a much more difficult thing therefore value for money for them to continue to to do than saying, “I tell you what, change your data work in that way and to get what is needed. The sharing.” That is hard, but much harder is working simplicity of getting kids back to school and reducing out, as Mr Jackson said, how you can come at Ev 28 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
children’s services in a different way so that you are Q153 Chris Heaton-Harris: This shows what not just constantly reacting to an ever-increasing leadership, and a shock to leadership, can do. It is still demand. the same people delivering the same service with a That is the biggest challenge for the programme. Of tiny bit more money, but with a programme and a plan course, we have to maintain cross-party high of massive improvement. It has been eye-opening for credibility for a programme that must survive those of us who have been watching it from the regardless of what happens in politics, because we outside. have to maintain this for the children. We can’t lose Mr Devereux, the Jobcentre regional guy was Rob another generation of children because we don’t get Cooper. I forgot to say his surname. He is worthy of this right—we just can’t. Sorry, that’s probably not the note because he has really worked hard on bringing right thing to say to the PAC, but that is what I think. my one-stop shop together in Daventry. Because that is working so well, I am über-confident about some of the things you are saying about joint working going Q152 Chris Heaton-Harris: Just following on from forward. My question comes back to the European that slightly, in Northamptonshire, where I started, the social fund money. It is not necessarily about troubled children’s services were failed by Ofsted, and it was families, but I am not so sure that you can reassign in a very bad way. I raised it in the House because I money like that so easily. First, for every five quid we was getting loads of casework that I really should not put in, we get two quid out, so we are getting less have been getting from parents who had issues with value from it straight away because it has gone it. As it’s at a low baseline, is that actually quite a through that process. Secondly, are you absolutely good place to start? They are desperate to get it sure that you can reassign money that easily from right—they have changed the whole management the ESF? system around how they work and they are increasing Robert Devereux: Don’t make it sound as if, having the amount of money they put in. Are they going to explained where the money has gone, I simply woke be in a better position, we hope, going forward? up one morning and switched it around. We have gone Louise Casey: Northamptonshire is one of those areas very cautiously in everything to do with the European that was on my worry list—that is no surprise between social fund, because as you probably know, at the end the chief executive and myself—partly because you of the day whether these funds have been well applied have to hold your nerve when an area like that is is not a matter for Amyas or for me; it is a matter for saying, “You know what, Louise? We may not get you their auditors, and they can take the entire money back your numbers in July or October, because we want to again. I can assure you that we are seriously risk do a wholesale reform in a different way.” You have averse in making decisions about ESF funding that we to trust them on it. Now they are projecting a much do not think will stand up. We have gone through it stronger position in terms of their numbers, as we are and we believe that these are all things that we are now in the new year. You have to trust that, don’t capable of doing. If you think about what I read out— you? You have to respect the chief executive and people from the Work programme, people who are respect what the children’s services people are saying, NEET and so on—we are in the same sort of territory. and hold your nerve. We are trying to promote employability. At the time, their turned-round position in October was really poor. That is the bottom line. They know I Q154 Chris Heaton-Harris: But did you talk to think that, and they have spent time reassuring both them about it? I am very wary about this, because in myself and my team. What they do is that people a different field we had to pay back huge chunks— locally take us through what is going on. We have a hundreds of millions of pounds—of regional funding huge amount of information and understanding about because we sprayed money around after BSE, I think, This is an embargoed advanceor something like that. copy. I am really wary of the process. where they are—for example, whether they have Did you engage with the European Commission? Ofsted in. All sorts of things happen in local for embargoRobert Devereux: detailsAs I understand it, we have done authorities.Not There to are be serious published case reviews, as Stewart in any form that. said—things go on. As long as we know what is going Chair: You had better write and confirm that to us. on, and as long as we understand and trust the before embargo time.Chris Heaton-Harris: See attachedAnd a bit about the process Press as restructuring they are doing—and that is what well, if that is at all possible. Northamptonshire is doing—I am happy. As long as Robert Devereux: Sure. at some pointnotice I know that the kids in Northamptonshire aren’t going to stay in families that Q155 Mr Bacon: Just two questions, one for Louise we are leaving dysfunctional because we are all sitting Casey and one for Sir Bob. You mentioned that around in partnership meetings or committee Northampton was on your worry list. Has Norfolk meetings, that’s fine. been on your worry list? It was the ninth-highest Time waits for no man. Every year that we are all recipient when it started. The director of children’s restructuring or thinking about things, a child’s life is services has gone, and we now have an interim one— not improving. There is always going to be a tension a very good one, I might add, whom I have met with somebody like me about pushing on with change. several times—who is beginning to make a difference I respect how Northamptonshire have gone about through leadership in the way that Chris was doing it, I was very reassured by the chief executive describing. We have an interim chief executive, we and I am looking at strong numbers in terms of their have an interim finance director and we have interim turned-around figures now in February and March. transportation and planning. When the scheme was Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 29
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
launched, the local paper referred to Norfolk as being worryingly encouraging signs that people are starting the ninth-highest recipient, which also meant, as the to talk to each other in the way one would hope. The paper pointed out, that it had the ninth-biggest number reason it is not getting any problems with political of troubled families. buy-in is that people have been looking for this sort Louise Casey: Norfolk remains on my worry list, and of thing for decades. Finally, the different parts of it will stay there until it improves. It is going through Government appear to be talking to each other. You all those changes, etcetera etcetera, but I am worried mentioned that there are six Departments involved about Norfolk and I am not going to sit here and say here. My question is: in a hit list where would be the it is all great—it isn’t. We get reassurances, but they other top areas where you think Government could know that I am coming to see them. They know why learn from this type of approach and do more joined- I am coming to see them and they know that I will up Government? help them try to work out what they can do to make Sir Bob Kerslake: There’s an opportunity. Let me give sure that they are able to use this programme to the you two that I think are very important. The first is best of their ability. To say that I am not concerned what we are doing around health and care. Many of about them would be to lie to you. the same issues occur about multiple agencies not getting to the heart of the issue for an individual. I Q156 Mr Bacon: I have had cases in my think we can learn a lot in what we are doing through constituency surgery that I perhaps ought not to have what we call the better care fund. That fund has very had. I might add, just for the record, that the new similar principles that are emerging: potentially attack interim director for children’s services seems to regard initial sums that go to local authorities, payment by information from MPs’ surgery cases as helpful. results and so on. A lot of learning about how we take Louise Casey: Sheila Lock? forward the better care fund is one example. Mr Bacon: Yes. The second is what we are doing in relation to local Louise Casey: She seems like a breath of fresh air, I growth. Through the creation of the new single local must say. growth fund we now have—though not without birth pains—a single local growth team that straddles CLG, Q157 Mr Bacon: She is a breath of fresh air. She BIS and the Cabinet Office cities team. Those are two seems to regard information from surgery cases as a examples where we have learned a lot from troubled helpful indication of what is really going on on the families. Crucially, what we have learned is just how ground, which I can tell you is a huge breath of fresh much more you can achieve if you force the issues of air. I am interested to know that that is on your radar. integration and joining up. It is probable that we should talk offline and that you might want to co-operate further with Norfolk MPs Q160 Chair: I have two points on that. One is that generally, because we are all very concerned about the the interesting thing about this programme is that it is position at the county. delivered locally, leaving quite a lot of discretion, but Louise Casey: I think, just to reassure you, that apart it is driven centrally. from the fact she seems like a breath of fresh air and Sir Bob Kerslake: That is right. I have some faith that we will make some progress, once you get the right leader you can move mountains Q161 Chair: Given how often you sit in front of us pretty quickly. That is what is so interesting about this and say it is all local with local discretion, it needs a programme. I have had other areas that I have worried strong drive from the centre, accepting that things will about, and it is about making them realise that it is a be different in Norfolk and Barking. top priority for them because it can help them in a Sir Bob Kerslake: The same would be true of the wider way, trying to remind them why we do this— better care fund and the health and care integration. Thisbecause is none ofan us wantsembargoed kids growing up in these advance copy. families—or persuading themfor on the embargo finance Q162 Chair: detailsYou might save a lot of pressure, where argument.Not If youto get be a good published leader—and it has to be inyou have any actually form just shoved it out. the chief executive or someone equally senior—things Sir Bob Kerslake: We have used a phrase and people can move really quickly. Once we have unlocked the have different reactions to it: muscular localism. door in Norfolk—andbefore I think embargo Sheila Lock might be time. See attached Press our way to do that—we will move quite quickly. Q163 Chair: Muscular localism is quite nice. It would be interesting to reflect on that. We might do Q158 Mr Bacon:noticeThe appropriately named Sheila that as a Committee. The final thing is that you Lock. obviously have support for the endeavour and purpose Louise Casey: She can unlock. of this, but where we are still nervous as a value-for- money Committee is how you will measure success. I Q159 Mr Bacon: Thank you, that is quite reassuring. hear that you are doing the evaluation. I wonder Sir Bob, the first recommendation in the NAO Report, whether you could write to us straight after this paragraph 17, is, “The programmes to help families Committee, or when you could, setting how quite have demonstrated again the need for policy making, clearly how you think you will measure success. We programme design and implementation to be more can then hold you to account in relation to that. joined-up.” Sir Bob Kerslake: We are happy to do that. There is That sentence could apply to any area of Government. a combination of outputs—measuring success around Although the Report says it is early days and too soon the 120 turned around—and outcomes, and the fully to judge value for money, there are some almost evaluation will help a lot with that. Ev 30 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
29 January 2014 Family Action, DCLG, Leeds City Council and Liverpool City Council
Q164 Chair: When is the evaluation due? to make me believe that we will get over the line on Louise Casey: We will probably get our first set of the first. information towards the end of this financial year and the beginning of the next. That will give us a lot of Q167 Mr Bacon: You can always merge a court with information about who the families are and their range a Jobcentre, then people could go straight from the and set of problems. The thing I take from this magistrate into a job. afternoon is that we need to speed up slightly the work Louise Casey: Somewhere like Leeds is absolutely on the costs aspects. clear that one reason for doing this programme is to reduce the number of children for whom it currently Q165 Chair: We need an outcomes framework to test spends £15,000 a week in residential care. Even in the value for money. places like Birmingham, for all its difficulties, the Sir Bob Kerslake: We’ll send you a note. leadership does not want the level of children being excluded at the moment into pupil referral units. I Q166 Chair: Robert, did you want to say something accept that we have to prove to you how we measure about that? that, and how we get that right. We are in the business Robert Devereux: I would add, just to get your of high numbers of families, very high expectations expectations straight, there must be two quite different and a cultural radical revolution in the way we think sorts of costs that this programme will save. There are about spend and how we go about dealing with these marginal costs. If I don’t need as many social workers families. that makes a saving. Then I have the entire cost of the court estate. In due course, if there are fewer people Q168 Ian Swales: We do not necessarily need going through it, one day I might close a court. Those capital-type issues like you are speaking about, but are radically different sorts of numbers with really the unit costs of going through a court or into prison, different time horizons. You should expect us to be that kind of thing. much better at the first because that is the immediately Sir Bob Kerslake: We will do the best analysis we cashable saving. You should check that we are not can. I would say that most local authorities recognise adding in the second one as well because, good as it that this form of reform is the way they are going to is, it has a different time horizon. You have only got manage budgets and be sustainable in the longer term. to see some of the interventions that we are making It is the only game in town. Chair: Good. Thank you very much indeed.
Written evidence from Family Action
Thank you for your email of 3rd February, see below for my response covering both Questions 64 and 65 below in relation to the wearing by police of head cameras and prosecution.
The feedback from some of our services who work with victims of domestic violence is that they were not aware of the use of head cameras in relation to their clients, but a couple are aware of an increase in the use of head or body cameras by the police when attending critical incidents. Regarding the issue of prosecution, our experience is that some of the victims of domestic violence that we work with find the possible consequences of pursing prosecution to be a frightening barrier. David Holmes CBE ThisChief Executive is an embargoed advance copy. 6 FebruaryNot 2014 to be publishedfor embargo in any details form beforeWritten evidence embargo from the Department time. for Communities See and Local attached Government Press I am writing to follow up on points raised with Sir Bob and me, when we appeared before your committee last month. I wantednotice first though, to thank you and other committee members for a very helpful discussion— it was both challenging and constructive. We completely agree that we need to establish very clearly the value for money provided by this programme. That was one of the reasons that very early in the life of the Troubled Families Programme, we decided to commission a three-year national evaluation.
The evaluation will demonstrate not just how the programme has changed the lives of families and the services around them, but how value for money has been achieved. A part of that, a ground breaking cost calculator is being developed, which will be a tool to help local authorities and their partners establish the costs and benefits of this Programme, to show how they are reducing their reactive spend on these families by working with them in a different way and to whom the cost savings accrue.
You asked me at the meeting to send you some details about how the evaluation of the Programme will measure success and I attach a note on that at Annex A. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 31
I will follow up with committee members separately on the queries that were raised about the operation of the Troubled Families Programme in their own constituencies. Louise Casey 10 February 2014
Annex A THE TROUBLED FAMILIES PROGRAMME: MEASURING SUCCESS Background The Government is working with 152 upper-tier local authorities and their partners to help turn around the lives of 120,000 troubled families in England by 2015. Local authorities are incentivised through a payment by results scheme, which allows them to claim up to £4,000 per family they have turned around based on: — Getting children back in to school. — Reducing youth crime and anti-social behaviour. — Getting adults in to continuous employment. The Department for Communities and Local Government collects information on how many families for which local authorities have claimed “results “ payments. However, the performance data gathered for the payment by results scheme is only one aspect of measuring the success of the Programme. We are also determining its effectiveness through a three year national evaluation which will demonstrate impact and measure value for money.
Evaluation The National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme is being carried out by a consortium led by Ecorys UK, in partnership with Ipsos MORI, Bryson Purdon Social Research; the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; the Thomas Coram Research Unit (TCRU) at the Institute for Education, and Clarissa White Research. The evaluation includes a range of activities to draw together a fuller analysis of the programme’s impact. These methods include: — A quantitative survey of 1,000 families led by Ipsos MORI, which will compare families who have been through the Programme with those who have not yet been through it. It includes questions on health, mental health, drugs, alcohol, debt and family relationships as well as their experience of the Troubled Families Programme. — Analysis of local authority data on at least 10% of the families who enter the Troubled Families Programme, looking at their profile information, the problems they start with and how those problems are reduced during the programme. — In-depth work in at least 20 case study areas, to understand how they have developed and delivered the Programme locally and how the programme has incentivised and driven public service transformation. — Qualitative interviews with at least 20 families during and after they have received support, looking This isin depthan at howembargoed their lives have changed andadvance their experience of publiccopy. services. — A national cost benefit analysisfor of embargo the Programme, including details a costs savings calculator available to Notall localto authorities be published to estimate savings in their in own area.any form The evaluation is due to run until Autumn 2015. Following a scoping and feasibility phase, the main qualitativebefore and quantitative fieldworkembargo is currently underway. time. See attached Press
noticeWritten evidence from Leeds City Council Following my evidence at to the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday 29 January 2014, I am providing a written response to 3 questions. — Q27 Nick Smith: Can I come back on my second question? I really would like to see that data. I want to know what success you have in getting youngsters into school. Due to the nature of the criteria that makes up a Troubled Family, not all children in all the families we work with will necessarily have educational issues. For example in a family with three children, two children may attend school regularly and one child may be persistently absent. However in order to claim payment by results and consider families “turned around” We must satisfy ourselves that all children in the families we work with have achieved fewer than 15% unauthorised absences. Ev 32 Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence
The best way I can assist the Committee is by providing a snapshot utilising the most recent available data. In this snapshot there were a total of 276 children who met this criteria by having unauthorised absence which has now dropped below 15%. These children had an average unauthorised attendance rate of 3.9% over the last academic year. The same 276 children in the academic term immediately preceding this had an average unauthorised attendance rate of 7%. I hope this assists to give the committee a better understanding of progress made by the troubled families programme in reducing absence and getting children to return to school. — Q29 Chair: I want to move us on, but can I quickly ask what proportion of your families have children on the at-risk register? To assist the Committee we have taken, as an indicative snapshot, our “Year 2” cohort of 800 troubled families. Of these 800 families, 24 families have been identified as having a child subject to a child protection plan in this cohort and this equates to 3% of the families we are working with. Of these 800 families, 92 families have been identified as having a child in need this equates to 12% of families we are working with. — Q31 Chair: What proportion of your families would you classify as having children in poverty? We do not readily hold data on family incomes so are not able to categorically state what proportion of families that we are working with have children in poverty. Our analysis across our Year 1 and Year 2 cohorts demonstrate that 89% of all families that we have worked with were in receipt of work related benefits at the start of our intervention. Additionally the largest numbers of families that we work with live in the most deprived wards of Leeds. Jim Hopkinson Head of Targeted Services 11 February 2014
Written evidence from Liverpool City Council
The City Council maintains a General Reserve (Working Balance) to provide resilience against financial uncertainty, this is of particular importance in the current climate of significantly reduced funding levels and the reforms introduced to Local Government finance that have seen a transfer of risk from central government to local government. In the event that reserves are used to support the Council’s budget position, they will only be able to be used on a one off basis and can not provide a permanent budget solution to the financial challenge faced as the reserve is finite. The budgeted level of the General Reserve is £24.8 million for 2013–14 which represents approximately 5% of the City Council’s 2013–14 net revenue budget. The City Council will maintain Working Balance of £24.8 million for the years 2014–15 and 2015–16 and then will reduce them to £17.6 million in 2016–17 (4.5% of net budget) as they are used to support the budget position in that year. If the City Council were to spend its general reserves to fund general fund services the money would run out in just over two2 weeks.
ThisIn addition is thean City Councilembargoed has earmarked reserves advance as set out in Table 1; acopy. brief description of each category of earmarked reserve is set out below:for embargo details Not— The to City Councilbe ispublished obliged to maintain a number in ofany Legally Restrictedform Reserves ; these are sums of money that the City Council is required to set aside for legally defined purposes (eg the Dedicated Schools Grant is ring-fenced and can only be used as defined in the Schools Finance (England) Regulations).before embargo time. See attached Press — The City Council has reserves in relation to its two PFI schemes. The reserves have been established to enablenotice the amount of unspent PFI grant received in the year to be carried forward to be spent in future years. — The City Council maintains a corporate risk register. To manage the financial implication of these risks the Council has prudently established a number of earmarked Risk Reserves to mitigate the anticipated impact on the budget and future years service delivery. The risk reserves include amounts set aside to meet any grant claw back; as it has received in excess of £300 million of external investment over a number of years from European and National Government. The majority of this external funding is subject to 20 year claw back provisions from date of project completions. Therefore in the event of assets being sold, used for alternative purposes not covered by grant or moving towards more commercial uses a proportion of this funding may be recovered from these awarding bodies. Other risk reserves include self insurance reserves held for schools (£5.9 million), a restructure fund (£12.5 million), legal claims (£10.5 million) including tripping claims, and provision for large scale emergencies (£3 million) including the Belwin Scheme. Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence Ev 33
— Specific Scheme Reserves have been established to enable the City Council to prudently manage its finances and relate mainly to expenditure and funding commitments that have been re-phased from 2012–13 into 2013–14 and future years. Some projects do not neatly fit into financial years and funding is required to be transferred from one year to another to complete projects and deliver service outcomes. In recent years there have been significant joint contributions set aside (currently £15 million for projects in 2014–15 and future years)) between the City Council and the Health sector to fund joint funded projects and initiatives. This is considered best practice by the Government which has been recognized through the establishment of the Better Care Fund. — The Grants Reserve is required to be held due to a change in accounting treatment required by the introduction of IFRS. The grants reserve represents revenue grant income that has been received with no “condition” (ie does not have to be repaid to the “grantor”) but where the related expenditure has not yet been incurred and includes grants such as the Troubled Families Grant £2 million) where the City Council acts as the accountable body. — The Schools Balances are not available for the City Council’s general use and are not included. The table below forecasts how the current earmarked reserves will be drawn down and utilised to support the budget position over the three year budget period 2014–15 to 2016–17. It is forecast that the current level of earmarked reserves will be £37.0 million by 2016–17 compared to £111.8 million in 2012–13 a reduction of £74.8 million.
Table 1 CURRENT EARMARKED RESERVES—ESTIMATED BALANCE AT THE YEAR END %age of net 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 spend £m £m £m £m £m % Legally Restricted 2.558 2.149 1.941 1.728 1.504 0.38 PFI Reserves 4.694 3.196 3.049 4.245 4.076 1.74 Risks 65.005 63.373 67.130 49.623 26.560 2.18 Specific Schemes 36.545 23.096 9.628 4.891 4.893 1.25 Grants 2.978 6.759 1.966 0 0 0 Total Reserves 111.780 98.573 83.714 60.487 37,033
The £37.0 million remaining as at the 31st March 2017 primarily relates to specific risk reserves for grant claw back, insurance and specific legal claims were it is not possible with certainty to predict in what year these reserves will be utilised and so are held on the balance sheet until required. An analysis of the forecast £37.0 million earmarked reserves as at 31st March 2017 is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 FORECAST EARMARKED RESERVES AS AT 31ST MARCH 2017 £m Legally Restricted Reserves 1.504 PFI Reserves 4.076 This is an embargoedSchools Self Insurance Reserveadvance 5.880 copy. Self Insurance Property and Motor 2.023 Grantfor Clawback embargo details 10.379 Not to be publishedLegal Claims in any form 6.003 Emergency Reserve (including Belwin) 3.071 Pension Reserve 769 before embargoWinter Maintenance Reserve time. See 491 attached Press Dilapidations 1.400 noticeOther Risk Reserves 1.437 TOTAL 37.033
Colette O’Brien 11 February 2014
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 04/2014 037603 19585 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
PEFC/16-33-622 This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice 37603_HC668_Cover / sig1 plateB Distribution by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
Online www.tsoshop.co.uk
Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 House of Commons
The Houses of Parliament Shop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Committee of Public Accounts Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890 General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk Programmes to help TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 families facing multiple This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/ challenges ISBN 978 0 215 07060 9
Fifty-first Report of Session 2013–14
This is an embargoed advance copy. Not to be publishedfor embargo in any details form before embargo time. See attached Press notice
HC 668 37603_HC668_Cover / sig1 plateA
37603 HC 668 Cover.indd 1 31/03/2014 21:16